School Shooting in Knoxville

[RockyTop85]

It was actually an overall ban on handguns in D.C. Or the lack of permitting for said firearms. Heller basically said you can't ban an entire class of weapons. Home or not was irrelevant.



The citation to Nunn was in context to your comment about the home. Which is why I don't think the 9th ruling is going to stand. Even though it was a State Supreme Court, the fact the SCOTUS uses it as precedent means it's not going to end well for the 9th.



As that New York law article thing pointed out. The Justice who wrote the opinion apparently wasn't a very good writer as it was. Smart as a tack, but not very good behind the pen.



You did say Miller was good law. Or rather, good precedent. When in reality it wasn't because there was no opposition to it at the SCOTUS level. That's the point I was making.

Would it have stood if the defense attorney who had already won at a lower level actually showed up in court to defend his client?



Good grief, dude. Stop keying in on the side items.

It never "regulated" the firearms. Oh, sure, they were "regulated" in the sense that the average 1930s American wasn't going to pony up $200 for their sawed off shotgun, but it was never meant as a regulatory measure.



Interesting that's the only Amendment where it uses that "infringed" language.



The 9th isn't really that compelling except in the fact there is plenty of case law precedent that would strike it down like the aforementioned Nunn or even Dred Scott. I feel like the 9th is going to lose this because of THIS CASE in which government cannot prohibit movement outside of the home. Provided, the SCOTUS kicked it back down to the lower courts since the laws were changed, but it should give one an idea what the SXOTUS will rule on the 9ths decision.

“He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home.”

“But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

Because the case leaves open the possibility of other type, place, and purpose restrictions, the only controlling feature pertains to the issue presented, which was “in the home.”

 

[RockyTop85]

You did say Miller was good law. Or rather, good precedent. When in reality it wasn't because there was no opposition to it at the SCOTUS level. That's the point I was making.

Would it have stood if the defense attorney who had already won at a lower level actually showed up in court to defend his client?

“Good law” meaning it hasn’t been overruled. Not “good law” as in “a ruling I necessarily agree with.”

The original holding has been abrogated to the meaning ascribed to it in Heller, but that meaning leaves the constitutionality of the NFA unsullied, so the case stands, as far as I understand it. I haven’t shepherdized it.

 

[RockyTop85]

It never "regulated" the firearms. Oh, sure, they were "regulated" in the sense that the average 1930s American wasn't going to pony up $200 for their sawed off shotgun, but it was never meant as a regulatory measure.

Reread what I said: The interpretation of the second amendment in Miller allows for regulation of firearms and it still does as interpreted in Heller.

 

[RockyTop85]

Interesting that's the only Amendment where it uses that "infringed" language.

The first amendment says “shall make no law.” They’ve treated it the same way as what I’m saying they’ll do here.

 

[RockyTop85]

The 9th isn't really that compelling except in the fact there is plenty of case law precedent that would strike it down like the aforementioned Nunn or even Dred Scott. I feel like the 9th is going to lose this because of THIS CASE in which government cannot prohibit movement outside of the home. Provided, the SCOTUS kicked it back down to the lower courts since the laws were changed, but it should give one an idea what the SXOTUS will rule on the 9ths decision.

You think so because your view of this subject is effectively summarized as “[caveman grunt] guns good!”

It’s legally compelling for the same reasons Heller is better than Miller. It points to the history of the right to bear arms in public all the way back to the 1300’s. If you’re looking at “what did they understand this right to include when they ratified it” that’s pretty damn compelling.

The court now has 3 baby faced originalists, two of which have already shown they will choose their jurisprudential chops over party politics, and that’s exactly how they’re going to look at it. If you think it’s going to be raining guns, I think you’re probably wrong.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Lol. Wrong. Again. You have to be closing in on 100 erroneous statements at this point.

You tried to say it didn’t allow for any further restriction.
Luther pointed out that it expressly allowed time, place, and type restrictions.
You said that wasn’t Scalia, that it was all the judges writing together or a law clerk, lol, then you moved on to “it’s contradictory,” before finally admitting you didn’t even read past “section 1” which I assume is actually section 2.

You also tried to say that “section 1” said that a “well regulated militia,” just meant people knowing how to use their guns. “That’s it,” you said. That is woefully incomplete to the point of being incorrect.

You moved on to “section 1 says the operative clause is the only one that has any teeth” which is made up reductionist nonsense.

(To prove my point, there’s been a fairly robust discussion of what you’ve called section 1 or finding 1 at various times. I’m sure you were off googling new theories to try to spin as “what you really meant,” but you should try reading that discussion.)

You also started harping about Miller and the NFA at some point, first saying they’re the basis for Heller and then saying it’s gutted by Heller, and then claiming “even I admit” things in an effort to try to decapitate some quixotic strawman you’ve devised for me (which is totally a thing people who are correct would do).

I’m sure there were others, but just based on that, it would be a supremely humiliating performance for somebody who wanted to be taken seriously on any subject ever again. Luckily for you, that ship sailed, wrecked, sank to the bottom of the ocean, and has founded its own ecosystem of colorful fish who swim around pointing and laughing at the hapless captain as he hurls impotent insults like “pettifogger”at the boats sailing above his head.

LMFAO. I didn’t make the statement I provided a quote from Scalia which started with “Because...” and I paraphrased after that. They are equivalent and no amount of stomping your feet will change that.

And you are now back to dunking on a phrase I stated was a guess when I made it.

And my harping has been consistent and coherent. NFA became the law of the land and limited the second amendment by circumventing the second amendment. That is a fact. So the second amendment was diluted by passing a law which didn’t address it and no real challenge of NFA1934 with regard to second amendment applicability has occurred to date. Not by Heller and not by Miller. The second amendment is currently diluted by a weak argument based on Congress taxation authority which has not been challenged squared away in a court of law.

Finish up polishing those clubs and I really hope people don’t pay you for legal advice.

 

[RockyTop85]

LMFAO. I didn’t make the statement I provided a quote from Scalia which started with “Because...” and I paraphrased after that. They are equivalent and no amount of stomping your feet will change that.

And you are now back to dunking on a phrase I stated was a guess when I made it.

And my harping has been consistent and coherent. Miller became the law of the land and limited the second amendment by circumventing the second amendment. That is a fact. So the second amendment was diluted by passing a law which didn’t address it and no real challenge of NFA1934 with regard to second amendment applicability has occurred to date. Not by Heller and not by Miller. The second amendment is currently diluted by a weak argument based on Congress taxation authority which has not been challenged squared away in a court of law.

Finish up polishing those clubs and I really hope people don’t pay you for legal advice.

If it was a guess, you should have looked it up instead of doubling and tripling down on it and saying it was “stupid” of me to point out that it was wrong.

The rest of this is garbage, the whole paragraph about Miller says absolutely nothing meaningful. It’s a string of platitudes like “law of the land” and “limited the second amendment by circumventing the second amendment...” that’s nonsense. Miller was a poorly written case that assumed the prefatory clause set militia membership as a condition precedent to the individual right. That is so irrational that nearly every circuit court agreed with it for 70 years. Do better.

I don’t even know what you’re responding to with the Scalia statement gibberish. Knowing you, you probably made it up. But envisioning sponge bob’s dopey starfish buddy laughing at you on the bottom of the ocean has me feeling bad. So I’ll award you one correct statement out of sheer pity. Surely to god Scalia used “because” somewhere in the opinion. Your line is now 1-♾-4, at last count.

 

[davethevol]

This situation is ripe for getting ugly. The KPD police chief is calling for the release of the body cam footage and the DA is saying absolutely not because there is a criminal investigation going on.

 

[allvol123]

This situation is ripe for getting ugly. The KPD police chief is calling for the release of the body cam footage and the DA is saying absolutely not because there is a criminal investigation going on.

If the KPD chief is calling for it that makes me believe there is a high degree of certainty on their end that the incident was handled correctly.

 

[Rickyvol77]

This situation is ripe for getting ugly. The KPD police chief is calling for the release of the body cam footage and the DA is saying absolutely not because there is a criminal investigation going on.

its just politics, Mayor Kincannon is playing for her hippie North Broadway constituents and for the East Knoxville Brigade, she knows that the DA can't release the footage yet, and she is just ordering her puppet Eve to parrot the line

 

[allvol123]

its just politics, Mayor Kincannon is playing for her hippie North Broadway constituents and for the East Knoxville Brigade, she knows that the DA can't release the footage yet, and she is just ordering her puppet Eve to parrot the line

I mean she is an absolute clown.

 

[UTFanForLife]

Because that's now racist!?

The signs telling people not to bring the weapons in doesn’t always work.

 

[davethevol]

its just politics, Mayor Kincannon is playing for her hippie North Broadway constituents and for the East Knoxville Brigade, she knows that the DA can't release the footage yet, and she is just ordering her puppet Eve to parrot the line

It’s a shame that Eve is still the chief.

 

[Grand Vol]

You think so because your view of this subject is effectively summarized as “[caveman grunt] guns good!”

It’s legally compelling for the same reasons Heller is better than Miller. It points to the history of the right to bear arms in public all the way back to the 1300’s. If you’re looking at “what did they understand this right to include when they ratified it” that’s pretty damn compelling.

The court now has 3 baby faced originalists, two of which have already shown they will choose their jurisprudential chops over party politics, and that’s exactly how they’re going to look at it. If you think it’s going to be raining guns, I think you’re probably wrong.

Please point to where I said anything about "raining guns."

You see, this is why nobody wants to have a conversation with you. We were having a reasonably decent conversation and you go stupid on it. I held up my end of the bargain by citing case law precedent and doing my part to show you Miller was wrong, why the government didn't have a case and why Heller made a mockery of that case.

Now, if you want to actually have a rational debate over case law of gun politics, I'm down. But if you want to go into your normal douche mode, piss off.

 

[GroverCleveland]

The mass purchasing of booze for illegal resell does not lead to more deaths.

You seem to be unaware of these from the 70s:

 

[RikidyBones]

Damn RT took a massive dump in this thread.

 

[luthervol]

You seem to be unaware of these from the 70s:

I was talking about the mass purchasing of "legal" booze.
Someone was comparing it to the mass purchasing of "legal" guns.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I was talking about the mass purchasing of "legal" booze.
Someone was comparing it to the mass purchasing of "legal" guns.

Okay, legal booze then. So your contention that mass purchasing of "legal" booze is this:

"The mass purchasing of booze for illegal resell does not lead to more deaths."

So what qualifies as mass purchasing of legal booze for you? And what is the equivalent in gun purchases?

 

[luthervol]

Okay, legal booze then. So your contention that mass purchasing of "legal" booze is this:

"The mass purchasing of booze for illegal resell does not lead to more deaths."

So what qualifies as mass purchasing of legal booze for you? And what is the equivalent in gun purchases?

The point at which a significant percentage of purchases of that size are made with the intent to illegally resell.
Using that definition, I'm not sure there is a point that qualifies for booze. (not true with guns)

That's why the comparison was such a poor one.

 

[Zues1]

Lil Dada and Lil Willie covid-19. Few videos on YT.

 

[RockyTop85]

Please point to where I said anything about "raining guns."

You see, this is why nobody wants to have a conversation with you. We were having a reasonably decent conversation and you go stupid on it. I held up my end of the bargain by citing case law precedent and doing my part to show you Miller was wrong, why the government didn't have a case and why Heller made a mockery of that case.

Now, if you want to actually have a rational debate over case law of gun politics, I'm down. But if you want to go into your normal douche mode, piss off.

It was actually an overall ban on handguns in D.C. Or the lack of permitting for said firearms. Heller basically said you can't ban an entire class of weapons. Home or not was irrelevant.

Interesting that's the only Amendment where it uses that "infringed" language.

The 9th isn't really that compelling

I feel like the 9th is going to lose this because of THIS CASE in which government cannot prohibit movement outside of the home.

Plus the prior questioning of whether the NFA would stand if challenged, today and just a general pattern of comments that Heller, and now other cases, are more expansive than what’s actually on the page and/or that you think recognition of the right is going to become even more broad with future cases.

The gist (which is why it was prefaced with “if”) of what I’m reading from you is that Heller and the current court is this sword of Damocles hanging over every existing or proposed gun regulation.

(The New York case you mentioned was moot).

 

[kiddiedoc]

I was talking about the mass purchasing of "legal" booze.
Someone was comparing it to the mass purchasing of "legal" guns.

Exactly. That's why you never see an under-21 DUI or alcohol-related traffic fatality.

 

[RockyTop85]

Damn RT took a massive dump in this thread.

 

[RikidyBones]

Eh

 

[NorthDallas40]

LMFAO “he started it”

Nah my dialog was actually more than dismissive “WRONG”. And no, just because in your brilliant-to-you mind you think that’s all that’s warranted most other people require more than just your judgement. Your pile is all your own here