Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

I'm not a fan

[aTm]

[Jungle Rat]

I hope they at least leave us with enough firepower to take down Bigfoot. You do agree he's out there right?

[hedge]

Sounds like a .22 is all you'd need, what with all the tumbling going on...

[eCat]

a small initiative has started among gun makers and ammo manufacturers to stop selling to Law Enforcement of states that invoke strict gun control.

I'd love for the police to be unable to purchase ammo or firearms and see how Cuomo and Bloomington react to that. Won't happen but I'd love to see it.

[eCat]

Scalia gives his interpretation of a firearm which I can agree with

"This morning on Fox News Sunday, Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated just how extremely his Constitutional originalism can be applied. Referring to the recent shooting in Aurora, CO, host Chris Wallace asked the Supreme Court Justice about gun control, and whether the Second Amendment allows for any limitations to gun rights. Scalia admitted there could be, such as “frighting” (carrying a big ax just to scare people), but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind. According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right to “bear arms”:


WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.
============================

so now we've got pretty a solid example of what a Militia is and what an interpretation of what a firearm is.

[Owlman]

a small initiative has started among gun makers and ammo manufacturers to stop selling to Law Enforcement of states that invoke strict gun control.

I'd love for the police to be unable to purchase ammo or firearms and see how Cuomo and Bloomington react to that. Won't happen but I'd love to see it.

Under the 5th Amendment of the United States (which is federal) but which is incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment, it says " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I don't know this, but I wonder if this could be used by those states if the manufactures have any presence in the state, which most do.

[Owlman]

according to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right to “bear arms”

How is this originalism when the right to bear arms originally included cannon? Scalia is the most schizophrenic justice on the court. It was not limited to just guns you can carry.

How can he talk about originalism when the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution only referred to the federal govt yet in McDonald vs. Chicago, he overturned 219 years of jurisprudence and said that it applied to the states as well?

[Bklyn]

so now we've got pretty a solid example of what a Militia is and what an interpretation of what a firearm is.

By one justice and a controversial one, at that. So, that's a start, but does not set the legal basis...by a mile (2 for 2).

a small initiative has started among gun makers and ammo manufacturers to stop selling to Law Enforcement of states that invoke strict gun control.

I'd love for the police to be unable to purchase ammo or firearms and see how Cuomo and Bloomington react to that. Won't happen but I'd love to see it.

Why?

[Owlman]

It's not that Scalia is arbitrary, it's his insistence that he's not arbitrary when he obviously is that's maddeningly.

[AlabamAlum]

Spacer,

I think he's talking semantics. To "bear" something means to hold it, or to hold it up. Also, McDonald was a 5-4, correct? I'm assuming Thomas, Roberts. Who else? Alito?

[Bklyn]

In other SCOTUS news, since we're on it, for the first time in seven years, Justice Uncle Thomas* spoke during arguments. Comically, the comments came during a particularly vibrant cross-talk, so it is barely on the record. Many believe it was a joke at Yale Law School's expense.

* and yes, while I don't dishonor the POTUS with besmirching plays on their names, I freely tee off on the Hill and SC residents

[Bklyn]

Also, from today's visit to Longform...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true

(good shit, although I'm only about half way through it...it was a short commute today, for me)

[eCat]

a small initiative has started among gun makers and ammo manufacturers to stop selling to Law Enforcement of states that invoke strict gun control.

I'd love for the police to be unable to purchase ammo or firearms and see how Cuomo and Bloomington react to that. Won't happen but I'd love to see it.

Under the 5th Amendment of the United States (which is federal) but which is incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment, it says " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I don't know this, but I wonder if this could be used by those states if the manufactures have any presence in the state, which most do.

I don't know - the closest real world scenario is Barrett refusing to sell their .50 cal sniper rifle to California law enforcement because Cali law prevented civilians from purchasing one. So far the decision, while infuriating law enforcement, hasn't been challenged.

Of course that doesn't prevent LEO's from going to Arizona and purchasing the guns directly, circumventing the companies policy but it makes for interesting discussion.

[eCat]

so now we've got pretty a solid example of what a Militia is and what an interpretation of what a firearm is.

By one justice and a controversial one, at that. So, that's a start, but does not set the legal basis...by a mile (2 for 2).

a small initiative has started among gun makers and ammo manufacturers to stop selling to Law Enforcement of states that invoke strict gun control.

I'd love for the police to be unable to purchase ammo or firearms and see how Cuomo and Bloomington react to that. Won't happen but I'd love to see it.

Why?

Because of the hypocrisy of the situation. Cuomo and Bloomington have 1 or more armed men within arms reach of them at all times and I'd be willing to bet they own more than one firearm. They'll never had to live under the legislation they create.

[eCat]

Also, from today's visit to Longform...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true

(good shit, although I'm only about half way through it...it was a short commute today, for me)

I enjoy reading those stories, especially after you have filtered out the bad ones.

[Owlman]

Spacer,

I think he's talking semantics. To "bear" something means to hold it, or to hold it up. Also, McDonald was a 5-4, correct? I'm assuming Thomas, Roberts. Who else? Alito?

He's talking hypocrisy. He complains about justices making up law, but he does it all the time. He says that he only does things that the forefathers would have done, but clearly picks and chooses based on his own political philosophy (such as it just stuff you can carry).

Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy

[eCat]

I can't speak to Scalia's consistency, however I can readily agree that a firearm should be limited to one that can be "bore"? "beared"? by a citizen because that interpretation falls into the bounds of reasonableness to me. Although personally I don't think that is the interpretation of the second Amendment. My interpretation is if the weapon can be used against you , then you have the right to defend yourself against it.

[AlabamAlum]

Spacer,

Perhaps I'm jaded, but it seems they all do that...

[Owlman]

Actually, most are modified originalist. This means they look at the rulings through time and try to follow a line of thinking through time. They know that things change over time. Scalia though believes he can channel how the original forefathers would rule, but it's surprisingly consistent with how his political philosophy is. Whereas the other justices (except Thomas) recognize their change, Scalia doesn't. Thomas actually believes in natural rights derived from the Declaration of Independence as interpreted by him.