https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-law-banning-carrying-firearms-public-places-blocked-106163484
LOS ANGELES -- A new California law that bans people from carrying
firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking
effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a
lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a
different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect
Jan. 1.
Saturday's decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District
Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the
Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in
proving it unconstitutional.
Which it is, of course.
On 1/7/24 08:03, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-law-banning-carrying-fi
rearms-public-places-blocked-106163484
LOS ANGELES -- A new California law that bans people from carrying
firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking
effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a
lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a
different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect
Jan. 1.
Saturday's decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District
Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates
the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail
in proving it unconstitutional.
Which it is, of course.
Don't tell our leftist friends that.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-law-banning-carrying-firear >ms-public-places-blocked-106163484
LOS ANGELES -- A new California law that bans people from carrying
firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking
effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a
lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a
different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect
Jan. 1.
Saturday's decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District
Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the
Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in
proving it unconstitutional.
Which it is, of course.
Since you consider all gun laws
to be unconstitutional what is your
point?
While I'm here, how is 2A so obvious and 14A is so tediously unclear? Compared to 2A, 14A is a paragon of clarity!
!Jones <x@y.com> wrote in
news:8chlpi1a2dgb88p556ju3i2v6pa7ka513h@4ax.com:
While I'm here, how is 2A so obvious and 14A is so tediously unclear?
Compared to 2A, 14A is a paragon of clarity!
The framers of the BoR deliberately
made everything as vague as possible so
as not to restrict future generations
with definitions that change. That is
why it has no definitions in it.
What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?
What is an arm? What is "well regulated".
What is an "infamous crime"? What is
"excessive bail"? "Papers and effects"?
So much of the Contitution is just
platitudes out of which we are supposed
read dead minds for intent or just uses
as our current circumstances require.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 15:14:59 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Since you consider all gun laws
to be unconstitutional what is your
point?
The issue with the second amendment is that its meaning is obvious to *everyone*; ...
!Jones <x@y.com> wrote in news:8chlpi1a2dgb88p556ju3i2v6pa7ka513h@4ax.com:
While I'm here, how is 2A so obvious and 14A is so tediously unclear?
Compared to 2A, 14A is a paragon of clarity!
The framers of the BoR deliberately
made everything as vague as possible so
as not to restrict future generations
with definitions that change. That is
why it has no definitions in it.
What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?
What is an arm? What is "well regulated".
What is an "infamous crime"? What is
"excessive bail"? "Papers and effects"?
So much of the Contitution is just
platitudes out of which we are supposed
read dead minds for intent or just uses
as our current circumstances require.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 18:35:53 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
!Jones <x@y.com> wrote in
news:8chlpi1a2dgb88p556ju3i2v6pa7ka513h@4ax.com:
While I'm here, how is 2A so obvious and 14A is so tediously
unclear? Compared to 2A, 14A is a paragon of clarity!
The framers of the BoR deliberately
made everything as vague as possible so
as not to restrict future generations
with definitions that change. That is
why it has no definitions in it.
What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?
What is an arm? What is "well regulated".
What is an "infamous crime"? What is
"excessive bail"? "Papers and effects"?
So much of the Contitution is just
platitudes out of which we are supposed
read dead minds for intent or just uses
as our current circumstances require.
Well, I will agree with reservations. As a counterpoint, I would
raise the language of 1A. I have heard few convincing arguments
centered on: "What did the framers *really* mean when they wrote:
'Congress shall make no law...'."
The fact is that the 1787 Constitution is a geriatric document. It
has had a good run; however, much of it has fallen into irrelevance in
the 21st Century. Did the framers *really* write 2A so that civilian militias would have the tools to overthrow the constitution violently
should they disagree with the outcome of an election? I tend to
believe that 2A was a compromise with slavery.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 15:14:59 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Since you consider all gun laws
to be unconstitutional what is your
point?
The issue with the second amendment is that its meaning is obvious to *everyone*; however, there is no agreement on exactly what that is.
The amendment is comprised of a single 27 word clause, woven into two
noun phrases, one dangling participle used as an adjective: (which is
"being necessary"?... the militia or the right?) and one verb phrase.
The sentence has *one* clause and four phrases. Any discussion of an "operant clause" and a "prefatory clause" is simply illiterate because
a *clause* must have a noun and a verb. (A *clause* would be a
syntactically correct sentence standing alone.)
We should rewrite 2a using 1a as a model: "Congress shall make no
law..." stating exactly what congress cannot do. The amendment must
define its terms: what, exactly, are these "arms" that we wish to
protect? If it isn't talking about a "well regulated militia", then
don't bring it up!
Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in news:XnsB0F27D933D15Dnoemailcomcastnet@69.80.102.53:
!Jones <x@y.com> wrote inA lot of that is idiom of the day and not "platitudes". In their mind,
news:8chlpi1a2dgb88p556ju3i2v6pa7ka513h@4ax.com:
While I'm here, how is 2A so obvious and 14A is so tediously unclear?
Compared to 2A, 14A is a paragon of clarity!
The framers of the BoR deliberately
made everything as vague as possible so
as not to restrict future generations
with definitions that change. That is
why it has no definitions in it.
What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?
What is an arm? What is "well regulated".
What is an "infamous crime"? What is
"excessive bail"? "Papers and effects"?
So much of the Contitution is just
platitudes out of which we are supposed
read dead minds for intent or just uses
as our current circumstances require.
they WERE being specific.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 18:35:53 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
!Jones <x@y.com> wrote in news:8chlpi1a2dgb88p556ju3i2v6pa7ka513h@4ax.com:
While I'm here, how is 2A so obvious and 14A is so tediously unclear?
Compared to 2A, 14A is a paragon of clarity!
The framers of the BoR deliberately
made everything as vague as possible so
as not to restrict future generations
with definitions that change. That is
why it has no definitions in it.
What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?
What is an arm? What is "well regulated".
What is an "infamous crime"? What is
"excessive bail"? "Papers and effects"?
So much of the Contitution is just
platitudes out of which we are supposed
read dead minds for intent or just uses
as our current circumstances require.
Well, I will agree with reservations. As a counterpoint, I would
raise the language of 1A. I have heard few convincing arguments
centered on: "What did the framers *really* mean when they wrote:
'Congress shall make no law...'."
The fact is that the 1787 Constitution is a geriatric document. It
has had a good run; however, much of it has fallen into irrelevance in
the 21st Century.
"!Jones" <x@y.com> wrote in message news:8chlpi1a2dgb88p556ju3i2v6pa7ka513h@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 15:14:59 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Since you consider all gun laws
to be unconstitutional what is your
point?
The issue with the second amendment is that its meaning is obvious to
*everyone*; however, there is no agreement on exactly what that is.
The amendment is comprised of a single 27 word clause, woven into two
noun phrases, one dangling participle used as an adjective: (which is
"being necessary"?... the militia or the right?) and one verb phrase.
The sentence has *one* clause and four phrases. Any discussion of an
"operant clause" and a "prefatory clause" is simply illiterate because
a *clause* must have a noun and a verb. (A *clause* would be a
syntactically correct sentence standing alone.)
We should rewrite 2a using 1a as a model: "Congress shall make no
law..." stating exactly what congress cannot do. The amendment must
define its terms: what, exactly, are these "arms" that we wish to
protect? If it isn't talking about a "well regulated militia", then
don't bring it up!
Really? And what exactly is the "speech" we wish to protect? Exactly
what "press" is it that we wish too protect..
If people like you applied your own standards for the 2nd to the 1st..
only speech approved by the government spoken only by those the
government has authorized to speak would be covered.
Yea, let's see you treat the 2nd as the 1st is.
Indeed, even the framers treated slavery
as a problem they could not solve and would
leave to future generations. Jefferson, a
slaver himself, said it was like holding an
attacking wolf by the ears - you don't like
him, but you don't dare let him go.
I suppose it would go something like "Government shall make no
law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I would probably be OK with that.
I suppose it would go something like "Government shall make no
law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I would probably be OK with that.
On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 02:53:26 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Indeed, even the framers treated slavery
as a problem they could not solve and would
leave to future generations. Jefferson, a
slaver himself, said it was like holding an
attacking wolf by the ears - you don't like
him, but you don't dare let him go.
Jefferson was in France for the ratification debates and, as far as
can be *proven* didn't comment publically on slavery until about 1820,
or so. The ratification debates *centered* on three topics: slavery, slavery, and slavery. Whether or not the South would ratify was an
open question for several years and, the 2/3 rule didn't apply to a
brand new document... each state stood alone. Essentially, 2A was the compromise that allowed ratification.
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 13:19:58 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
I suppose it would go something like "Government shall make no
law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I would probably be OK with that.
Cool... we're in agreement.
But... you do recall that I said that it had to define "arms"
unequivocally.
I'm gonna guess that you won't be so agreeable when it gets specific,
huh?
On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 20:05:27 -0600, in talk.politics.guns "X, formerly
known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
I suppose it would go something like "Government shall make no
law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I would probably be OK with that.
Also, I would specify "*Congress* shall make no law... "
Gun laws are
the explicit province of the states, not congress.
"X, formerly known as "!Jones"" <x@y.com> wrote in message news:sj9ppih1e0u99rcqi9792kvlu49hh09i82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 02:53:26 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Indeed, even the framers treated slavery
as a problem they could not solve and would
leave to future generations. Jefferson, a
slaver himself, said it was like holding an
attacking wolf by the ears - you don't like
him, but you don't dare let him go.
Jefferson was in France for the ratification debates and, as far as
can be *proven* didn't comment publically on slavery until about
1820, or so. The ratification debates *centered* on three topics:
slavery, slavery, and slavery. Whether or not the South would ratify
was an open question for several years and, the 2/3 rule didn't apply
to a brand new document... each state stood alone. Essentially, 2A
was the compromise that allowed ratification.
Now all you have to do is support the, hmmm, 'history' you claim above
and you will have a point.
Because what I learned of history isn't even close to your assertions.
But as the historian here, I'm sure
you're fully prepared to back up
your claims with period documentation, showing that in 1787 slavery in
the South, one hundred years in the future, was going to be a concern.
So let's see the documents that support your assertion.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 304 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 33:56:05 |
| Calls: | 6,820 |
| Files: | 12,335 |
| Messages: | 5,407,120 |