The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

orlly says:
Quote:
You substantially misrepresented what Justice Scalia said.
He did not in any way suggest that unconstitutional measures are acceptable

You misrepresent what Scalia said, not me. He said that absolutists like you and the NRA are wrong. , that the 2nd amendment is not absolute and that reasonable regulation is perfectly acceptable and has always been so. I suggest you go back and read his majority opinion in Heller.

THAT question has never been argued before the Court.
It was not part of the case presented to the USSC.

That question has yet to be determined.

David

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

No, you idiot, people exactly like me opposed slavery.

Slavery was supported by people who oppose freedom and civil rights.

You oppose freedom and civil rights.

Slavery was opposed by people who value freedom and civil rights.

I value freedom and civil rights.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You misrepresent what Scalia said, not me.

The only person here who is making things up about what Justice Scalia said, is you.

MontereyJack wrote:

He said that absolutists like you and the NRA are wrong.

Nope. He did not say that either me or the NRA are wrong, and he did not refer to either me or the NRA as "absolutists".

MontereyJack wrote:

that reasonable regulation is perfectly acceptable and has always been so.

Your word "reasonable" is a code-word for "civil rights violation".

Justice Scalia did not say it was OK to violate people's civil rights.

MontereyJack wrote:

I suggest you go back and read his majority opinion in Heller.

No need. I already know what it says.

0 Replies

You clearly don't know what it says if you think it says what you think it says.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

THAT question has never been argued before the Court.
It was not part of the case presented to the USSC.

That question has yet to be determined.

It'll almost certainly be the normal balance of strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You clearly don't know what it says if you think it says what you think it says.

I am 100% familiar with every single thing that the ruling says.

0 Replies

so why do you completely misinterpret it?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

so why do you completely misinterpret it?

You are the only person here who misinterprets what was said in Heller.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

BillRM wrote:

I can just see the reaction if I ever would show up
at an American gun range with that whatever it is firearm.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Even tho the weight (wate) has functional utility
in absorbing some of the recoil of a .44,
I still disfavor so awkward a gun; too long.

oralloy wrote:

Chambered for .44 magnum, such a gun might be interesting
for defense against large bears.

It woud be interesting. What 's your preference of bullet configuration ?

I saw a fellow on TV who claimed to have defensively killed a bear
(whose pelt he had nailed on the wall) with a knife
because his gun was out-of-reach.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

THAT question has never been argued before the Court.
It was not part of the case presented to the USSC.

That question has yet to be determined.

oralloy wrote:

It'll almost certainly be the normal balance of strict scrutiny,
intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review.

As I remember, rational basis review was dismissed out-of-hand in HELLER.

It was scorned.

1 Reply

re oralloy: As I said, what you think Scalia says, is not what he has explicitly said.
Scalia in Heller:

Quote:

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

You, and the NRA are arguing for unlimited rights to guns, which makes you, yes, absolutists, and that is NOT what the second amendment says. You will notice that the Court has no problem with restirctions on concealed carry weapons, or restrictions on who can own guns, or restrictions on where they can be carried (and there is no reason to think that schools or government buildings are the only places where they can be restricted), or with restrictions on thier sale, all of which you and the NRA seem to oppose. You will also note that their standard for guns that are protected is the kind of arms that might be found in a Colonial home, which would be at most a black powder two-shot long gun or pistol. An automatic weapon does not fit into that category, so is not protected. And there certainly looks to be room for, for example New York to argue that a semi-automatic weapon, using modern smokeless powder rather than blackpowder, with much greater penetrating power, capable of seven shots or more with magazines that hold multiple rounds, and capable of firing all of them in under five seconds or so, is in no sense a usual Colonial weapon and is not protected. No, Scalia has repeatedly said that the views you've repeatedly stated, are not what the Constitution protects. They've also said that future desisions on permissible weapons have to take account of community standards. So there is a hell of a lot more scope for regulation than you believe, AND IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The most that u can possibly have there is obiter dicta.

It has NO precedential value because it was never argued
nor was anything received into evidence on those issues.

Those questions are put off for another day.

David

0 Replies

For the significance of obiter dicta, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum#Significance_of_obiter_dicta

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It woud be interesting. What 's your preference of bullet configuration ?

For a .44 mag defending against large bears, probably those 300-grain hard solids from Federal, if they are still being made.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

As I remember, rational basis review was dismissed out-of-hand in HELLER.

It was scorned.

I don't think they really addressed it. But I presume the matter would be the same as with any other right:

An issue that is central to the right in question will receive strict scrutiny.

Something that is not-so-central to the right in question will get intermediate scrutiny.

And something only loosely connected to the right in question will get rational basis review.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

re oralloy: As I said, what you think Scalia says, is not what he has explicitly said.

The fact remains, I know exactly what Justice Scalia wrote.

You're forgetting that I was actually involved in the case (albeit in a pretty insignificant role). The odds of me somehow not bothering to note what the ruling said when it came out, are rather slim. I had the entire thing memorized within the first day.

Scalia in Heller wrote:

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

Yes. That is what he wrote.

MontereyJack wrote:

You, and the NRA are arguing for unlimited rights to guns, which makes you, yes, absolutists,

I really doubt you can cite the NRA making such an argument.

I know for a fact that you can't cite any occurrence of me saying such a thing.

MontereyJack wrote:

You will notice that the Court has no problem with restirctions on concealed carry weapons, or restrictions on who can own guns, or restrictions on where they can be carried

Actually, I notice that they have no problem with some such restrictions, and have a very big problem with other such restrictions.

The question of whether a given restriction passes muster all depends on whether or not that particular restriction violates people's rights.

MontereyJack wrote:

all of which you and the NRA seem to oppose.

While I note your use of the word "seem", I think it is unlikely that either me or the NRA seem to oppose that. Both me and the NRA very clearly only oppose those particular measures that actually violate people's rights.

MontereyJack wrote:

You will also note that their standard for guns that are protected is the kind of arms that might be found in a Colonial home, which would be at most a black powder two-shot long gun or pistol.

Nonsense. They did not in any way confine the scope of the Second Amendment to the equivalent of 200-year-old technology.

MontereyJack wrote:

An automatic weapon does not fit into that category, so is not protected.

That depends on what you mean by "automatic weapon".

MontereyJack wrote:

And there certainly looks to be room for, for example New York to argue that a semi-automatic weapon, using modern smokeless powder rather than blackpowder, with much greater penetrating power, capable of seven shots or more with magazines that hold multiple rounds, and capable of firing all of them in under five seconds or so, is in no sense a usual Colonial weapon and is not protected.

The only thing there that they even might have success arguing is the question of very large magazines. And even there, they'll lose badly if they try to argue for a 7 round limit.

MontereyJack wrote:

No, Scalia has repeatedly said that the views you've repeatedly stated, are not what the Constitution protects.

You can't show a single occurrence of Justice Scalia ever contradicting anything I've said.

(Actually I do differ from him a bit, but not in the way that you mean here.)

MontereyJack wrote:

They've also said that future desisions on permissible weapons have to take account of community standards.

Not your best line of argument. "Semi-auto weapons with large magazines" are widely accepted in America.

MontereyJack wrote:

So there is a hell of a lot more scope for regulation than you believe,

No, what I believe is the permissible scope for regulation, is pretty close to the actual permissible scope for regulation.

MontereyJack wrote:

AND IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL.

Regulation beyond the scope of what is permissible would not be constitutional.

2 Replies

This is what the liberals prefer for Zimmy,
instead of what actually happened:

By Former Congressman Allen West

White University of Minnesota student Colton Gleason was walking
with friends in St. Cloud when a car pulled up, and Jesse Smithers
got out and punched him. The single punch killed Gleason.

The 18-year-old Smithers was sentenced to 10 years in jail.
He originally entered a plea of not guilty but changed it to second-
degree murder. Appearing in court Thursday, Smithers apologized
for what he called a “complete accident.”

But Colton’s mother, Julie, disputes this claim. “Somebody didn’t just
run over and hit a car and provoke an attack,” Julie said. “This was an
attack that was meant to happen.” Colton’s father, John, believes his
son was the victim of a deadly “knockout game.”

Probably the most disturbing aspect of this case and sentencing is that
since Smithers has been behind bars for the past 18 months due to his
sentence, he will be eligible for release in five years.

Could Colton Gleason have been President Obama’s Son?
Where was Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice?
Do any of you recall the outrage from the media and the protests
held for justice in Colton’s case?

I would not be surprised if my anger at the sentencing in this case will
be ridiculed by faux black leaders such as Jackson, Sharpton, and the
NAACP as just a “ventriloquist’s dummy” being the “mouthpiece” for white folks.

But there is no denying the blatant hypocrisy regarding “justice”
that’s supposed to be blind and equally applicable. What lesson has
Jesse Smithers and others learned from this case? Can anyone tell me
what’s going on in the Delbert Belton murder case? Oh right, his
murder is forgotten too.

To the Gleason family, please accept my humble condolences not only
for the loss of Colton, but for the utter disrespect shown to you and
your family. Our courts, the progressive media and the black liberal
“leaders” may not deliver true justice, but ultimately God will.

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/wasnt-classified-hate-crime/#zPoBAKejBpjrt0Yw.99

I bet that Firefly is very, very happy -- thrilled -- that neither the victim,
nor any of his companions shot the murderer. Right ?

David

0 Replies

I wish that the late Mr. Gleason had drawn out a revolver
and slain the murderer, Firefly.
That wud have been a more just result.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

As I remember, rational basis review was dismissed out-of-hand in HELLER.

It was scorned.

oralloy wrote:

I don't think they really addressed it.
But I presume the matter would be the same as with any other right:

An issue that is central to the right in question will receive strict scrutiny.

Something that is not-so-central to the right in question will get intermediate scrutiny.

And something only loosely connected to the right in question will get rational basis review.

As I remember, Justice Scalia made the point
that the Authors of the Constitution had already decided the merits
of what was enacted and it did not lie for a court to do that over again.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
re oralloy: As I said, what you think Scalia says, is not what he has explicitly said.

The fact remains, I know exactly what Justice Scalia wrote.

You're forgetting that I was actually involved in the case (albeit in a pretty insignificant role). The odds of me somehow not bothering to note what the ruling said when it came out, are rather slim. I had the entire thing memorized within the first day.

Scalia in Heller wrote:
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

Yes. That is what he wrote.

MontereyJack wrote:
You, and the NRA are arguing for unlimited rights to guns, which makes you, yes, absolutists,

I really doubt you can cite the NRA making such an argument.

I know for a fact that you can't cite any occurrence of me saying such a thing.

MontereyJack wrote:
You will notice that the Court has no problem with restirctions on concealed carry weapons, or restrictions on who can own guns, or restrictions on where they can be carried

Actually, I notice that they have no problem with some such restrictions, and have a very big problem with other such restrictions.

The question of whether a given restriction passes muster all depends on whether or not that particular restriction violates people's rights.

MontereyJack wrote:
all of which you and the NRA seem to oppose.

While I note your use of the word "seem", I think it is unlikely that either me or the NRA seem to oppose that. Both me and the NRA very clearly only oppose those particular measures that actually violate people's rights.

MontereyJack wrote:
You will also note that their standard for guns that are protected is the kind of arms that might be found in a Colonial home, which would be at most a black powder two-shot long gun or pistol.

Nonsense. They did not in any way confine the scope of the Second Amendment to the equivalent of 200-year-old technology.

MontereyJack wrote:
An automatic weapon does not fit into that category, so is not protected.

That depends on what you mean by "automatic weapon".

MontereyJack wrote:
And there certainly looks to be room for, for example New York to argue that a semi-automatic weapon, using modern smokeless powder rather than blackpowder, with much greater penetrating power, capable of seven shots or more with magazines that hold multiple rounds, and capable of firing all of them in under five seconds or so, is in no sense a usual Colonial weapon and is not protected.

The only thing there that they even might have success arguing is the question of very large magazines. And even there, they'll lose badly if they try to argue for a 7 round limit.

MontereyJack wrote:
No, Scalia has repeatedly said that the views you've repeatedly stated, are not what the Constitution protects.

You can't show a single occurrence of Justice Scalia ever contradicting anything I've said.

(Actually I do differ from him a bit, but not in the way that you mean here.)

MontereyJack wrote:
They've also said that future desisions on permissible weapons have to take account of community standards.

Not your best line of argument. "Semi-auto weapons with large magazines" are widely accepted in America.

MontereyJack wrote:
So there is a hell of a lot more scope for regulation than you believe,

No, what I believe is the permissible scope for regulation, is pretty close to the actual permissible scope for regulation.

MontereyJack wrote:
AND IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL.

Regulation beyond the scope of what is permissible would not be constitutional.

The ONLY thing that was decided in HELLER
is that the citizen has the right to KABA inside his home
and that the 2 A protects an Individual Right,
un-related to any militia service.

Anything else in the decision is obiter dictum.
It was not argued, nor was any evidence taken at trial.
Any other judicial comments have no precedential value.
That remains for litigation at a future day.

David

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know