+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? (/showthread.php?tid=13041)
how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? - The Profit Joseph Sith - 03-24-2017
Watch this and try not and cry. This is truly BS. hopefully not the beginning of the end.. hopefully everyone sees this and gets "mad as hell"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8HVAB91-kqM
how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? - explorecaves - 03-24-2017
Just going to point out that with the lack of information in the post, this just appears to be more "clickbait" than something worth spending time on. My curiosity is so jaded with the volume of clickbait out there that I no longer follow things that look like it. If you really want people to watch something, spend the 2-3 minutes to actually type a small synopsis of the topic being covered.
how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? - keystone183 - 03-24-2017
explorecaves Wrote:Just going to point out that with the lack of information in the post, this just appears to be more "clickbait" than something worth spending time on. My curiosity is so jaded with the volume of clickbait out there that I no longer follow things that look like it. If you really want people to watch something, spend the 2-3 minutes to actually type a small synopsis of the topic being covered.
Random youtube link.......no thanks.....:\
how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? - Bullitt1 - 03-24-2017
Well, this will be overturned, but we have to live with it in the meantime (if you are in MD) They completely misquoted Heller in the decision to the point it was laughable, I mean really laughable.
You can read the decision here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Fourth-Circuit-Court-of-Appeal-Opinion.pdf from the actual decision: "That is, we are convinced that assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” —“weapons that are most useful in military service” which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach"
This does not appear in Heller, the closest thing in Heller is: "Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”
. Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons” to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added)."and here is what I consider the relevant part if Heller on this subject: "We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"
Maybe they thought that, now that he is no longer with us, Scalia could be ignored?
how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? - rabiddawg - 03-24-2017
synopsis
[si-nop-sis]
noun, plural syn·op·ses [si-nop-seez] /sɪˈnɒp siz/.
a brief or condensed statement giving a general view of some subject.
how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? - The Profit Joseph Sith - 03-28-2017
.... Thanks I know what synopsis means... Lol. Click bait... I'm offended! And I almkst threw my phine across the room typimg this ome sentance alone, so i hooe youll all forgive .e!
Very interesting post there bullitt1 thanks for the legal brief, and taking tbe time to write it up! (Im jellyous
I particularly like the part copied below, gives me that warm tingly feeling. Your post kinda makes me want to get involved with some legal studies. I enjoy history, law is really just another facet of history. Never thought of it that way for some reason ? :S
since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
For those click bait-o-phobes I figured you would know what "the gun collective" was... And if you need a "summary" it's about a lower district fed court in the east ruling that AR type assualt rifles will now be banned in multiple states! Yikes! I thought the left coast was commie!
But I bet you can still legally buy and own a old fashioned gatlin' ;p
how sad is this? how come no ones talking about it besides "the gun collective"? - explorecaves - 03-28-2017
The only part that told me it wasn't click-bait was "the gun collective" phrase. But with the lack of information posted, it left me with no desire/curiosity to motivate me to click the link. Now that there is more information posted, my interest is peaked and I will have to go and watch the video when I have time later tonight.