In the Interests of Justice

[Smuckatelli]

What about your own carrier battle group? Or armed nuke silos? You could be modest with just an armed f16. Will the FAA let citizens fly around in their own gunships? No. You will get escorted to a runway where your asset will be seized.

Kev, your above questions are beyond sophomoric. How is an individual going to own and operate a carrier battle group, nuke silos, F-16, gunships? One person couldn't operate those systems, numerous could but than again....that would make them a militia wouldn't it?

The balance is between the potential to destroy the way of life of others vs personal freedoms. If an ancient law is completely out of touch with the modern world it can be a guide only. Following it to the letter makes no sense. In the arab spring, the countries that changed without fighting did not rely on a second amendment type rule. The ones that were changed with conflict had State level assets interveneing (Libya) without which the revolution would be squashed.

The balance is between what the sovereigns determine the government can or can not do. You pulling the Arab Spring into this thread is a strawman arguement.

Back to the original post. He should walk free. He had a simple misunderstanding of the laws.

The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.

[Jarhead0331]

The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.

I wish, wish, wish, this were true.  Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled it is not.  :'(

According to the Supreme Court, States and municipalities are permitted to enact laws regulating the ownership of firearms, so long as the laws do not constitute, prima facie, an all out ban.

[Smuckatelli]

The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.

I wish, wish, wish, this were true.  Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled it is not.  :'(

According to the Supreme Court, States and municipalities are permitted to enact laws regulating the ownership of firearms.

I'm thinking, hoping that with all of the assaults that have been happening on the Constitution, just maybe this crap will stop.

[Bayonet_Chris]

The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.

I wish, wish, wish, this were true.  Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled it is not.  :'(

According to the Supreme Court, States and municipalities are permitted to enact laws regulating the ownership of firearms, so long as the laws do not constitute, prima facie, an all out ban.

Right. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you're going to carry a firearm into a new jurisdiction, the onus is on you to know and understand the law there. You don't have to agree with it and you certainly within your rights to challenge it, but it is the law there until it is otherwise changed or stricken down.

[son_of_montfort]

I'm very disappointed in JH and Smuck for letting this slide:

Take the case of former Marine Ryan Jerome, an Indiana jeweler arrested last September at the Empire State Building for carrying a .45-caliber handgun — legally purchased and licensed in his home state.

I said this once... and only once...  ;)

EDIT:
I'm not sure I find that comma argument very convincing. That is a lot of meaning behind a grammatical construct whose import and usage differs quite a bit from the 18th century. Better to focus on other, more compelling evidence from the personal writings of the founding fathers. I'm not saying this to argue against any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment given here... just - as a comma user and abuser - I wouldn't base a Supreme Court decision on the commas in my research or anything.  :P

[Jarhead0331]

EDIT:
I'm not sure I find that comma argument very convincing. That is a lot of meaning behind a grammatical construct whose import and usage differs quite a bit from the 18th century. Better to focus on other, more compelling evidence from the personal writings of the founding fathers. I'm not saying this to argue against any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment given here... just - as a comma user and abuser - I wouldn't base a Supreme Court decision on the commas in my research or anything.  :P

You would be mistaken to underestimate the significance of grammar where statutory interpretation is concerned.  It simply cannot be ignored or discounted.  It is critical...there are whole volumes written on the issue.

Punctuation can make an extreme difference.  For example:

A woman, without her man, is nothing.

A woman: without her, man is nothing.

...or

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy - will you let me be yours?

Jill

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can be forever happy. Will you let ...

[son_of_montfort]

You would be mistaken to underestimate the significance of grammar where statutory interpretation is concerned.  It simply cannot be ignored or discounted.  It is critical...there are whole volumes written on the issue.

You would also be mistaken in overestimating the seriousness of the pre-modern comma. Medieval statutes didn't use any punctuation - periods, commas, etc. And they had a functioning legal society. ;)

But if you are so interested in the import of commas, I have 280 pages of proofreading for you - if you want to make sure I used all my commas correctly?  ;D

[Jarhead0331]

You would be mistaken to underestimate the significance of grammar where statutory interpretation is concerned.  It simply cannot be ignored or discounted.  It is critical...there are whole volumes written on the issue.

You would also be mistaken in overestimating the seriousness of the pre-modern comma. Medieval statutes didn't use any punctuation - periods, commas, etc. And they had a functioning legal society. ;)

But if you are so interested in the import of commas, I have 280 pages of proofreading for you - if you want to make sure I used all my commas correctly?  ;D

I'll make a deal with you. Don't advise me with respect to the law and the way it works, and I won't try to explain to you how Medieval society functioned.  By the way smart guy, I already have my degree and a professional license. tell me when you're finished with yours so I can congratulate you!  :P

[son_of_montfort]

I'll make a deal with you. Don't advise me with respect to the law and the way it works, and I won't try to explain to you how Medieval society functioned.

Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012? Just saying.  ;D

By the way smart guy, I already have my degree and a professional license. tell me when you're finished with yours so I can congratulate you!

I'm in no mood to joke about the progress of my professional license. It hasn't been the best two weeks in that regard.

[Jarhead0331]

Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012? Just saying.  ;D

What the hell do you study exactly? Isn't it all just knights, dragons, English wenches, and inbred royalty crap?

I'm in no mood to joke about the progress of my professional license. It hasn't been the best two weeks in that regard.

Eeek...sorry, dude.

[LongBlade]

Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012?

Actually (and I'm sure JH can speak with more authority to this) law can very commonly reach back to the 18th Century. I've chatted with attorneys in Louisiana who have told me that some parts of their law goes back to French Napoleonic code.

And that some of their law goes back to Roman law.

If I were you I'd retreat from this line of attack, SoM. Just sayin' ;)

[LongBlade]

What the hell do you study exactly? Isn't it all just knights, dragons, English wenches, and inbred royalty crap?

<snicker>

I'm in no mood to joke about the progress of my professional license. It hasn't been the best two weeks in that regard.

Eeek...sorry, dude.
[/quote]

+1

[Smuckatelli]

EDIT:
I'm not sure I find that comma argument very convincing. That is a lot of meaning behind a grammatical construct whose import and usage differs quite a bit from the 18th century. Better to focus on other, more compelling evidence from the personal writings of the founding fathers.

SoM, you need to take the class if you can find some time. He built his case off of the federalist papers which just so happen to be personal writings used by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison promoting the ratification of the Constitution.

[son_of_montfort]

Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012?

Actually (and I'm sure JH can speak with more authority to this) law can very commonly reach back to the 18th Century. I've chatted with attorneys in Louisiana who have told me that some parts of their law goes back to French Napoleonic code.

And that some of their law goes back to Roman law.

If I were you I'd retreat from this line of attack, SoM. Just sayin' ;)

What the hell do you think the medieval statutes I study was based off of?  ;) America uses a lot of English Common Law, and that stretches back to the 14th century and before. Louisiana's use of the Napoleonic code is actually "new" in comparison. But the Constitution looked backward for inspiration, not forward (although sometimes the Founders do seem like time-traveling wizards) ,which is why I said it was socially more similar to my period than 2012.

I think you would be surprised at how much the stuff I look at, in regards to statutes, would be similar to the stuff JH does, in practice, today. Particularly contracts and such. One of the major documents I used is a listing of rights held by my city of choice. You all would find it fascinating. Someday, I'll let you read the chapter I wrote on it.

What the hell do you study exactly? Isn't it all just knights, dragons, English wenches, and inbred royalty crap?

You would be shocked at just how inbred the family of royalty I study were. Queen Joan of Naples married not one but two cousins. I'm hurt about the statement of English wenches. Do you really think I am so dull and boring that I would study medieval England...  ;) It's the Mediterranean all the way! I study the legal culture of debt reclamation against foreign citizens. They called this rights of marque (like the privateers) but it operated like an asset seizure or lien. Also, it was a civic right to use this procedure, which makes it a little more interesting.

SoM, you need to take the class if you can find some time.

I'll try. But I'm not going to lie, the last two months were some of the worst in my life in terms of stress, disappointment, self-doubt and rage. If I can get myself to this sorry watering hole or boot up Crusader Kings II or some visceral thing like Mass Effect 2, I consider it precious time.  :-[

[Jarhead0331]

I'll try. But I'm not going to lie, the last two months were some of the worst in my life in terms of stress, disappointment, self-doubt and rage. If I can get myself to this sorry watering hole or boot up Crusader Kings II or some visceral thing like Mass Effect 2, I consider it precious time.  :-[

So what the heck happened man?  Or has this already been explained somewhere, like in the "so there I was" thread?  I can never keep up with that thread.