School Shooting in Knoxville

[C-south]

That's the really important part of the finding. You can't weigh all parts equally after all.

No YOU can’t weigh all parts equally.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Not to derail the discussion, but has anyone released information explaining why a high school student was carrying a gun inside a school building?

 

[luthervol]

No YOU can’t weigh all parts equally.

Evidently.
I would guess either you can or you can't.

 

[luthervol]

Not to derail the discussion, but has anyone released information explaining why a high school student was carrying a gun inside a school building?

They came in and searched my school (Meigs - 8th/9th grades - Nashville) back in 1973 and confiscated 3 guns. We had two school shootings at Meigs that year.

 

[RockyTop85]

And I would submit that the textual analysis done in Heller directly conflicts with the findings in Miller.

Incorrect.

From Heller Scalia basically asserts the prefatory clause of “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” is nothing more than eloquent speak for “If you have a firearm we want you to know how to skillfully use that firearm if you are called upon to do so.”

incomplete.

That’s it, that’s all it means. The meat is the ownership of firearms shall not be infringed. And the government is granted no power over the people in 2a by that prefatory clause.

Incorrect.

NFA1934 was overreach and Miller had no choice but to uphold it or it guts the legislation. And NFA1934 was our first federal limitations on ownership so yes the concept of federal limits on firearms is a rather new concept.

Amendment II. BEARING ARMS

Incorrect and irrelevant.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That's the really important part of the finding. You can't weigh all parts equally after all.

Well you can’t that’s for sure!

 

[NorthDallas40]

Incorrect.


incomplete.

Incorrect.


Incorrect and irrelevant.

Nope. My comments are correct and are in line with the findings. You just saying “nuh uh” has no weight. You would have been better off just not replying.

And yes NFA1934 was indeed the first relevant federal limitation on private firearm ownership. What do you have that was earlier? Which of course then makes it relevant and directly refutes your assertion that the concept of no limitations on firearm ownership is a modern concept.

 

[RockyTop85]

Nope. My comments are correct and are in line with the findings. You just saying “nuh uh” has no weight. You would have been better off just not replying.

The opinion speaks for itself and has already been linked along with sufficient excerpts to show that nothing you’ve said deserves a more detailed response, particularly given their author’s history of just making **** up.

 

[RavinDave]

To make us attractive to females?

And vice versa!

 

[NorthDallas40]

The opinion speaks for itself and has already been linked along with sufficient excerpts to show that nothing you’ve said deserves a more detailed response, particularly given their author’s history of just making **** up.

Scalia’s opinion does speak for itself. The operative clause is the only statement with teeth.

Heller also found the rights were individual rights.

Heller decimated the militia commentary in Miller.

There was no significant legislation prior to 1934 thus the concept of firearms limitations is a modern concept. And Heller was a good first step at reeling that concept back with the textual analysis approach.

I don’t blame you I wouldn’t want to defend your bull **** either.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Not to derail the discussion, but has anyone released information explaining why a high school student was carrying a gun inside a school building?

There was just that linked video from a local resident claiming he went out and got it from the car for self defense because an adult was supposedly threatening assault right after school.

You had mentioned you might have some relevant background info on all of the recent shootings? Anything you can share?

 

[luthervol]

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

I'm guessing he chose these words carefully.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm guessing he chose these words carefully.

I’m guessing they were another justice’s words which were included in his whole opinion. And they conflict with the body of the opinion based on the power vested in the operative clause.

I also know your brain is not equipped to accept that.

 

[RockyTop85]

Scalia’s opinion does speak for itself. The operative clause is the only statement with teeth.

Heller also found the rights were individual rights.

Heller decimated the militia commentary in Miller.

There was no significant legislation prior to 1934 thus the concept of firearms limitations is a modern concept. And Heller was a good first step at reeling that concept back with the textual analysis approach.

I don’t blame you I would want to defend your bull **** either.

Made up reductionist nonsense is still made up reductionist nonsense, even when it’s repeated.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Made up reductionist nonsense is still made up reductionist nonsense, even when it’s repeated.

You’re being too harsh on yourself pettifogger.

Wait... no you’re not.

 

[SamRebel35]

Not to derail the discussion, but has anyone released information explaining why a high school student was carrying a gun inside a school building?

Spoken like a true bigot!

 

[hndog609]

1. the language wasn’t part of the holding in Miller or Heller. It could be written off as non-controlling dicta in which Scalia added on to the holding of Miller to write what he wanted in Heller. It’s attributed to the holding in Miller, but it’s clearly not even close to what Miller says (which I think is another point in my favor).

2. it would be incredibly easy to create a dichotomy using the prefatory clause (well regulated militia) and Scalia’s traditional lawful purpose as two classes of rights with the latter being a less expansive right. Scalia himself acknowledges that military grade weapons, including mere long guns, are subject to restriction: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

3. states don’t need to ban the AR-15 or all similar platforms but can limit the features of the platform that facilitate people of low or below average skill killing multiple people on a short amount of time.

4. even if it were a holding (and the language is repeated in the recognition of a right later in the decision), courts add context that changes the legal meaning of language from the commonly understood meaning all.the.time. It’s exactly what Scalia did to get around Miller; it’s the same thing they’ve done to the Miranda holding by considering equivocations when a person has made a request for counsel. A court could easily find that “traditional” in “traditional lawful purpose” limits the scope of that phrase to subsistence hunting and self defense and that a “weapon of war” is not commonly used for those purposes. Hobbyist activities such as collecting and recreational target shooting were not common practices and were not contemplated at the time of the drafting. On the other end of the phrase, a justice could say that the public understanding of common use refers back to what was common at the time of ratification and anything beyond a flintlock musket or blunderbuss is fair game for legislative control.*

This kind of parsing is what courts do and there’s nothing that makes it difficult to do it here in a relatively clean legal slate, except for the prevailing judicial philosophy of the current composition of the court. And, again, this is coming from an average, at best, lawyer with one judicial clerkship and less than a decade of total experience (which didn’t touch on this issue) while the people on the court are going to generally be well above my intelligence level and have decades of either academic or judicial experience.

*- I can’t recall seeing originalism applied this way, but Scalia was supposed to be THE originalist and Heller is anything but originalist, so who knows.

Appreciate the reply but I'm just rushing through and won't be able to address anything 'til later.

 

[RockyTop85]

Appreciate the reply but I'm just rushing through and won't be able to address anything 'til later.

No worries. It was just a list of examples of how I think a court could skirt Heller without expressly overruling it.

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Not to derail the discussion, but has anyone released information explaining why a high school student was carrying a gun inside a school building?

I read a rumor that came from Twitter this morning, but the content has since been deleted. The gist was that Thompson and his girlfriend had gotten into a fight that day, and the gf went home. Apparently the gf's father had been physical with the student in the past, and had been sending Thompson threatening texts. That was the alleged reason Thompson had a gun to begin with. The rumor also said that after the gf had gone home, that was the point that Thompson decided to retrieve the gun from his car and bring it into the school. Did not elaborate on how the ordeal got to the bathroom. Scuffle ensued, shot fired from Thompson's gun, then two more shots from KPD.

TBI is saying that the bullet that struck the KPD officer did not come from Thompson's gun. Mayor Kincannon is calling for the body bodycam footage, and DA Charme is declining.

 

[SuzyVol]

Not to derail the discussion, but has anyone released information explaining why a high school student was carrying a gun inside a school building?

Rickyvol77's Post 754 in this thread contains a video in which a young lady describes what happened. It may or may not turn out to be accurate.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Rickyvol77's Post 754 in this thread contains a video in which a young lady describes what happened. It may or may not turn out to be accurate.

Its not accurate, just highlighting the nuts...

 

[RockyTop85]

I’m guessing they were another justice’s words which were included in his whole opinion.

Wrong.

And they conflict which the body of the opinion based on the power vested in the operative clause.

Wrong.

 

[Orangeburst]

To make us attractive to females?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Wrong.

It was a guess on my part. Do you have a link that states those were his own words? Are you saying the opinion only contains inputs from the author? That’s stupid.

Wrong.

Nope as you’ve said the ruling speaks for itself. The only phrase with teeth is the operative clause. And the comment Luther highlighted is in clear conflict with the operative clause as it supposes the Feds CAN infringe on the people’s right. The constitution clearly says that is unconstitutional and in fact was supported in the base opinion of Heller. Then of course the word salad started... much like your own posts

 

[RockyTop85]

It was a guess on my part. Do you have a link that states those were his own words? Are you saying the opinion only contains inputs from the author?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar

Justices write their own opinions. If it is not in quotes, it is the work of the authoring Justice assisted by his or her clerks. If another justice of the majority has something to add, it is published in a concurring opinion. This is known.

The only phrase with teeth is the operative clause.

Made up reductionist nonsense.

And the comment Luther highlighted is in clear conflict with the operative clause as it supposes the Feds CAN infringe on the people’s right.

Wrong.

The constitution clearly says that is unconstitutional and in fact was supported in the base opinion of Heller.

Wrong.

Then of course the word salad started... much like your own posts

Wrong.