How is this legal?

Frank Ettin · Oct 9, 2014

denton said:
...The FOID card law prohibits possession/ownership of firearms by all people, everywhere, at all times, absent a state granted license/permission. I think that form of regulation is no more permitted than requiring prior permission/license to publish news or opinion in any form, at any time...

It's nice you think that, but what you think really doesn't mean anything. It's what a court thinks that matters.

denton said:
Frank Ettin said:

The article describes how the legal and analytical principles which have been used to reach decisions in First Amendment cases also have application to Second Amendment cases.

Click to expand...

Then we are in violent agreement. I rest my case.

Phooey! Your statement:

denton said:
...I think that the courts are following the example of 1A to define what the contours of the 2A right will be....

means that only if you finesse the meaning of "contours."

Of course we've seen in the past that you don't necessarily value clarity.

No matter. I've linked to the Dave Kopel paper in the Tennessee Law Review; and while it's lengthy, it's worth reading, as is anything he writes.

Steel Horse Rider · Oct 9, 2014

Frank: Do you believe that the right to own a firearm is equivalent to the "Right" to drive a car? I am making an assumption that you are an attorney and your place of residence also helps to put a perspective on your opinions. Court decisions are written by humans, which puts them into the fallible camp, not the "natural law" camp. God given rights are easy to understand if your judgment is not soiled by a belief in the infallibility of the legal system. You are correct in your opinions if the proceedings are confined to the court of legal doctrine but that does not make them right in the court of reality. Go ahead and bash me, I am accustomed to the attacks of the PC brigade who defend tolerance and diversity......

Frank Ettin · Oct 9, 2014

Steel Horse Rider said:
Frank: Do you believe that the right to own a firearm is equivalent to the "Right" to drive a car? ...

Nah, I'm not going to play that sucker game. And I gave up drunken, midnight, dorm-room bull-sessions over 40 year ago.

Steel Horse Rider said:
....God given rights are easy to understand if your judgment is not soiled by a belief in the infallibility of the legal system....

Enjoy your alternate reality. I'm concerned with how things work in real life in the real world.

Steel Horse Rider said:
...You are correct in your opinions if the proceedings are confined to the court of legal doctrine but that does not make them right in the court of reality...

Actually, what courts do is reality. What courts do will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

denton · Oct 9, 2014

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

That was Scalia, in the Heller decision, using the established 1A case law to set one of the contours of the the 2A case law to come.

Of course we've seen in the past that you don't necessarily value clarity.

That's an ad hominem attack. I think you are a better person than those who habitually resort to such.

There is enough sorrow, disappointment, and anger in the world that none of us need to add to the supply. I would not knowingly cause you to have to double up on your blood pressure meds. We disagree. That's OK. Good discussion challenges old beliefs, and sometimes lets me replace an old idea with one that is better. I thought that was what were having fun doing.

Frank Ettin · Oct 9, 2014

denton said:
That was Scalia, in the Heller decision, using the established 1A case law to set one of the contours of the the 2A case law to come...

No, that was Scalia illustrating how the rights protected by the Second Amendment may be subject to regulation just as rights protected by the First Amendment may be subject to regulation. But nothing in his statement describes the "contours" (whatever you think that means in this context) of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

denton said:
...That's an ad hominem attack. I think you are a better person than those who habitually resort to such...

No, it's casting doubt on your credibility based on past conduct. We have clear evidence that you like to use words loosely and try to finesse their meanings. That raise questions about how seriously we can take your statements.

denton · Oct 9, 2014

it's casting doubt on your credibility

But all the same, not an attack on me?

Frank Ettin · Oct 9, 2014

denton said:
But all the same, not an attack on me?

It is a comment on your manner of argumentation and describes why your statements must be considered with skepticism.

cgrutt · Oct 9, 2014

Some counties in NYS require that you purchase a handgun that you are prohibited by law from touching before you even apply for a permit, which you "may" (or may not) be issued. Complete non sense...

denton · Oct 10, 2014

It is a comment on your manner of argumentation and describes why your statements must be considered with skepticism.

Nice sophistry.

No, you attacked my credibility rather than arguing the issues. The irony fairly drips.

Have a good night's rest. Enjoy your day tomorrow.

Frank Ettin · Oct 10, 2014

denton said:
...you attacked my credibility rather than arguing the issues....

There can be no meaningful discussion of the issues unless the participants in the discussion are credible and their statements can be understood and accepted.

So when, for example, you make a statement that reasonably means one thing on its face, but you then shift the meaning, productive discussion becomes impossible. Pointing that out is not an ad hominem argument. It is a challenge to your rhetoric.

An ad hominem attack would be to discredit someone's argument based on an irrelevant attribute of that person, e. g., "You're wrong because you're from California." But in a discussion one's credibility is always relevant, as is one's use of rhetorical slight of hand.

Where you're from has nothing to do with the validity of your statement. But your credibility or use of slippery rhetorical devices certainly does have something to do with the validity of your statement.

denton said:
...Have a good night's rest. Enjoy your day tomorrow.

I can assure you that I will both have a good night's rest and a good day tomorrow.

denton · Oct 10, 2014

An ad hominem attack would be to discredit someone's argument based on an irrelevant attribute of that person

I had a really sarcastic zinger showing the fallacy of your statement. But I'm not going to post it. I think you are already trying much too hard to justify yourself.

Frank, I truly wish you the best. I'm not trying to antagonize you or anyone else. I'm trying to have a little fun, talk about my opinions with some friends, and maybe learn something along the way. We're not in front of a judge. I'm not an opposing witness. We're supposed to be making each other's life a little more enjoyable and well informed.

Frank Ettin · Oct 10, 2014

denton said:
An ad hominem attack would be to discredit someone's argument based on an irrelevant attribute of that person

Click to expand...

I had a really sarcastic zinger showing the fallacy of your statement. But I'm not going to post it. I think you are already trying much too hard to justify yourself....

And you'd be incorrect:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument....

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that
abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

denton said:
...I'm trying to have a little fun, talk about my opinions with some friends, and maybe learn something along the way. ...We're supposed to be making each other's life a little more enjoyable and well informed.

We're not necessarily all friends, and in this discussion we're not just chatting about baseball. We're discussing a serious, complex and highly technical subject.

Understanding the law and the legal process in depth calls for a certain level of precision and discipline. With a too casual approach it's too easy to get started down an incorrect analytical path. Clarity and details count.

Midwest · Oct 10, 2014

cgrutt said:
Some counties in NYS require that you purchase a handgun that you are prohibited by law from touching before you even apply for a permit, which you "may" (or may not) be issued. Complete non sense...

I thought it works this way.....

I thought you get the permit first. (Six Months to Two Years)

Then when you want to buy a pistol they give you a piece of paper. (Called an Amendment)

You then take the paper to the FFL buy the gun.

The FFL takes the paper adds in the serial number and fills out the rest of it.

You take that piece of paper back to the county and then they add the gun to the permit.

Once the county adds the amendment to the permit you can legally pick up the gun from the FFL.

Or in the case of adding a gun to the permit ....The wife wants to add her husbands gun to her permit...so she can legally use it too...you bypass the FFL and just fill the paperwork at the county, then they add to the permit right there. Now husband and wife has the pistol listed on each of their permits.
.

glummer · Oct 11, 2014

I thought it works this way.....
Almost.

I thought you get the permit first. (Six Months to Two Years)
Approximately correct. Time varies with county, judge, etc. And permit may have restrictions imposed by issuing judge, at his discretion. (All non-lawful, by the way - that is, state legislation does not cover this. If you violate the restrictions, e.g. carrying concealed on a "Hunting/Target Shooting" permit, you have committed no crime. But the judge can pull your permit, without any due process, at his discretion. And your only appeal is to him. You won't have a record; but you won't have any handguns, either.)

Then when you want to buy a pistol they give you a piece of paper. (Called an Amendment)
? They give you a permit.

You then take the paper to the FFL buy the gun.
You must show a permit to look at/handle/buy the gun.

The FFL takes the paper adds in the serial number and fills out the rest of it.
The FFL gives you a bill of sale, with s/n#, description, etc.

You take that piece of paper back to the county and then they add the gun to the permit.
You take the bill of sale to the county and they add the gun to the permit.

Once the county adds the amendment to the permit you can legally pick up the gun from the FFL.
You take the amended permit back to the FFL, and he runs an NCIS check before giving you the gun.

How is this legal?

Frank Ettin

Moderator

Steel Horse Rider

Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

denton

Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

denton

Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

cgrutt

Member

denton

Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

denton

Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

Midwest

Member

glummer

Member

Similar threads