Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[BluesStringer]

Since you favor historical precident I'm sure you're ready with a law or court ruling stating the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited.

And again you avoid acknowledging that strict scrutiny has never been applied to a Second Amendment case before 2/4/2016 in the Fourth Circuit's Kolbe v. O'Malley ruling.

Considering how strongly you have relied on the 2A being a right that is always decided under the strict scrutiny doctrine throughout this thread, for any of your arguments to be considered valid at this point, you'd have to acknowledge your mistake. Otherwise, everyone who's followed that part of your argument already knows that you've been mistaken since the first time you mentioned the phrase, "strict scrutiny," and the inability to admit to a mistake is tantamount to the inability to admit, or to tell, the truth.

I guess I can take your answer as confirmation that you don't have a clue where any level of "scrutiny" by federal courts originated? Words and phrases that courts use as legal axioms that most people paying any minimum amount of attention have routinely heard, even if they don't necessarily know what they mean (like you), and that don't appear anywhere in The Constitution, don't become legal axioms in a vacuum. They came from somewhere, most likely from a court ruling, which I've already said that any and all levels of "scrutiny" that the 4th C. used last week all originate from the same Supreme Court ruling. I've also said that the ruling itself would be considered by anyone applying actual "strict scrutiny" to the words of The Constitution (or in the case of gun rights, the Second Amendment), an abomination and usurpation of the document concerning the part of the ruling that created standards of judicial review that are not articulated in any shape, manner or form within the document. The above is laced with hints about what ruling that is. An expert on constitutional law such as yourself should certainly be aware of the origins of the standards you promulgate as being valid authorities of the Supreme Court to wield against the rights of The People.

So where does "scrutiny" of any level come from, professor?

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

And again you avoid acknowledging that strict scrutiny has never been applied to a Second Amendment case before 2/4/2016 in the Fourth Circuit's Kolbe v. O'Malley ruling.

I'm just beside myself in amazement that you've never heard of the Heller decision.

That's when Strict Scrutiny began being used on gun rights limits. June 2008, not February 2016. You're 8 years off. What we see in the federal appeals courts today is a continuation of what Heller started.

Your other questions regarding where the tests came from are so far past the topic of this thread that I simply leave it up to you to Google for yourself.

Strict Scrutiny is what removed the handgun ban, it's what's going to defeat Main's (and thus every other state's) 'assult-weapon' ban, it's what will remove the machinegun ban. Strict Scrutiny is the standard to meet. A law requiring minimal safe storage would pass Strict Scrutiny and thus would not be an infringement.

 

[steveksfc]

I have been following this thread from the beginning it seems and can say a lot of information has been given out. Like anything one still needs to check out for themselves anything they hear, read or told. But, I want to thank everyone who has posted here as you have opened my eyes even more and I feel that since receiving my concealed carry I have read a lot of information that just makes my thirst even more for information. Thanks again everyone. I do appreciate what you have posted and will keep looking for more information to satisfy my thirst for knowledge. I am not a newbie to handguns but did have to many years in between for carrying.

 

[Bikenut]

No government can enact any limit which undermines the right to keep and bear arms.

I guess I have more experience explaining things to dummies

Limit and undermine huh?????

infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary

infringe
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Definition of infringe in English:
-snip-
Synonyms
2Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

Encroach | Definition of Encroach by Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of encroach

intransitive verb

1
: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

Bold and underline in the above cite added by me for emphasis....

Now what was that pesky part of the 2nd Amendment about "shall not be infringed"?

A while back you said...

Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
What I advocate removing from the market are these silly gadgets that encourage people to leave their guns just laying around; or, that these things have some kind of lock on them.

Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
Of course. Your firearm should be either on your person, or locked. Define for yourself what 'locked' means. In a locked car, in a locked room, in a lock box, in a safe...when I store my revolver in my bag at work it's just trigger locked. I even keep it loaded. That's about where I set the bar.

Looks like some infringement/encroachment to me. So not only would you .... limit... what people are allowed to put on the market you would ... limit... how people -keep- their arms to either locked up or on their person but you would be magnanimous enough to ... allow... folks to define what your imposed limit of "locked up" means. Got it.

Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
An infringement is a limitation that doesn't obay the rules. If a limitation follows the rules, Strict Scrutiny in this case, that limitation is not an infringement.

And exactly what entity would have the power to do what you .... advocate? Wouldn't it be the very entity (the government) that would use the Strict Scrutiny standard?

Hence... a plain reading of your own posts show you to be ... advocating... for infringing the right to keep arms using the government's own invented Strict Scrutiny standard of limiting.

The problem is that the plain definition of infringement I cited and linked to above show any limit is an infringement. Got that? Any limit regardless of what standard or set of rules is used by the government to justify imposing that limit.... a limit is still an infringement.

Even though the right to keep and bear arms stands to benefit from the Strict Scrutiny standard the Strict Scrutiny standard still limits and is still a method of inflicting infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms. A less onerous standard of inflicting infringements than the standard currently being used but a standard used to inflict infringements none the less.

Now before you come back with some foolishness about going around inflicting harm like you did in an earlier post .... while I firmly believe there should be no limits of any kind on the right to keep and bear arms I fervently believe that those who inflict harm while using a right (any and all rights) should be punished. Got the distinction? Punish the person who did the harm.... not the right used while doing harm.

 

[BluesStringer]

I'm just beside myself in amazement that you've never heard of the Heller decision.

If you *know* that to be true, it will be easy for you to cite the passage of the ruling that states they used strict scrutiny to decide the case. I'll make it easy for you. Here's the link to the ruling housed on the Courts official website.

*If you're going to cite the few times that "strict scrutiny" is found in that ruling, please make sure to note in your reply whether it was excerpted from the Majority Opinion (Scalia) or the Dissenting Opinion (Breyer or Stevens). One matters, the other doesn't. See if you can figure out which is which.

That's when Strict Scrutiny began being used on gun rights limits. June 2008, not February 2016. You're 8 years off. What we see in the federal appeals courts today is a continuation of what Heller started.

Actually, the Heller case represents the first time at the Supreme Court level when strict scrutiny was specifically mentioned (in Breyer's dissent) as not applying to the Second Amendment, and the Majority left it an open question when responding to that dissent. Otherwise, strict scrutiny has never been mentioned by the Supreme Court as applying to the Second Amendment ever.

Go ahead and keep proving that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, or check the link above for yourself. I am not 8 years off, you are, except that's not really true either, is it? You've asserted that every enumerated right falls under the strict scrutiny doctrine, and right up until the quote above, you never even hinted at the notion that the Second Amendment "started" getting that level of scrutiny only in 2008.

...Strict Scrutiny applies to all rights spicificaly enumerated in the Constitution; freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speach, keep and bear arms, equal protection, voting, etc.

Doesn't really matter though. You're as wrong about strict scrutiny "starting" as-applied to the 2A in 2008 as you are about it ever applying to the 2A from the federal appeals court level before 2/4/2016.

Your other questions regarding where the tests came from are so far past the topic of this thread that I simply leave it up to you to Google for yourself.

EDIT: Uh....I got nothin'.

There, fixed it for you. You don't have a clue, as per usual.

Strict Scrutiny is what removed the handgun ban, it's what's going to defeat (1) Main's (and thus (2) every other state's) 'assult-weapon' ban, it's what (3) will remove the machinegun ban. Strict Scrutiny is the standard to meet. (4) A law requiring minimal safe storage would pass Strict Scrutiny and thus would not be an infringement.

(1) It's Maryland, not Maine.

(2) The Majority ruling in Heller itself acknowledges the supposed "constitutionality" of limiting The People's right protected in the 2A to weapons other than "those in common use for lawful purposes" at the time the limitation was enacted. As per usual, you are wrong about what the application of strict scrutiny even has the potential to achieve in restoring the unambiguous language of the Second Amendment to its original meaning.

(3) Supposedly, according to you, the 2A has always been ruled upon under strict scrutiny at the federal level. As such, Miller would be the controlling precedent-setting ruling concerning machine guns, as that is when the so-called "right" to keep and bear those types (and others) of arms was taxed and a permitting scheme was first instituted. That was 1939. Miller has yet to be overturned, and it's for damn sure that Heller or McDonald didn't overturn a single aspect of it, so under your own mistaken understanding of what strict scrutiny means, the 4th C. ruling in Kolbe v. O'Malley has very little chance of having any influence whatsoever on the machine gun ban. As per usual, you don't have a clue.

(4) Nonsense. In order for any safe storage law to survive under strict scrutiny of all enumerated rights, its provisions would have to overcome the Fourth Amendment as well as the Second. To wit: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Strict scrutiny of that amendment, which has been the basis of multitudes of rulings in the federal system (unlike the 2A which has only ever had one ruling just last week), would dictate that what goes on in a citizen's home or vehicle is the purview of the citizen, not the government, and that even if a law mandating certain storage practices of weapons did pass constitutional muster (which it almost certainly would, so far gone into judicial activism are the courts in this country already), so too would probable cause supported by oath or affirmation by the law enforcement agency conducting the search apply to how they could legally enter a home to see how people were storing their weapons.

What's strict scrutiny for the goose (the 2A), is strict scrutiny for the gander (the 4A), right?

As per usual, you don't have a clue.

...every limit must either pass the Strict Scrutiny test or be struck down.

Apparently to you, all limits except for how one keeps his arms should be strictly scrutinized.

I have clinically diagnosed OCD and I know how to use it

The mentaly deficient cannot control themselves and are thus a public hazzard.

Please do let us know when you turn in your guns.

OCD is a "mental deficiency," even if not normally indicative of being violence-prone. But that is true of the overwhelming percentage of "mental deficients" who do get disarmed anyway. Law is wholly inadequate to predict and/or preempt violent episodes even of those who are "clinically diagnosed" like you.

Just to be sure though, in order to serve your own credibility on the matters being discussed in this thread, and also to serve up a solution to the "public hazard" you present, you should volunteer your weapons to the nearest law enforcement agency until such time as it can be determined by government that you are safe to enjoy your so-called "rights" in public. We will all thank you for your sacrifice towards public safety, and hopefully your treatment will cure your irresistible impulse to stick your nose in other peoples' business by siccing government to intrude into our very homes to enforce laws that strict scrutiny defines as none of government's business either.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

Carrying on...

Yes you are. Quite a bit. And going nowhere. Have you thought to ask yourself who you're trying to convince and what you're trying to convince them of? You aren't exactly demonstrating an attitude conducive with influencing people toward your side of the argument. And if you aren't trying to win the debate, why exactly are you going to all this trouble to piss people off and alienate others who might otherwise be your allies in a fight toward a common goal?

 

[Blueshell]

Yes you are. Quite a bit. And going nowhere. Have you thought to ask yourself who you're trying to convince and what you're trying to convince them of?

Oh, you thought I was trying to convince someone. I don't know what you expect me to do about your false assumption.

I'm here simply to speak the truth. Whether or not others choose to accept it is up to them. They can accept correction like an adult, or deny the truth and continue to expose their ignorance, leave the thread in shame only to be embarrassed elsewhere, or they can kill themselves. The choice is theirs, I have no control.

 

[Blueshell]

Limit and undermine huh?????[irrelevant definitions follow]

Not all limits are infringements. "limit" is within the definition of "infringement" because some infringements, not all infringements, can take the form of a limit. Not all limits are infringements. I'm so sorry public education has failed you, idiot.

...[blah blah blah etc etc]...

Not every limit is an infringement. There is a test to see if a given limit is or is not an infringement. The test is called Strict Scrutiny and is quite logical in it's structure and execution.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Limit and undermine huh?????[irrelevant definitions follow]

Not all limits are infringements. "limit" is within the definition of "infringement" because some infringements, not all infringements, can take the form of a limit. Not all limits are infringements. I'm so sorry public education has failed you, idiot.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
...[blah blah blah etc etc]...

Not every limit is an infringement. There is a test to see if a given limit is or is not an infringement. The test is called Strict Scrutiny and is quite logical in it's structure and execution.

You can ignore the plainly worded definitions from different dictionaries but that doesn't change the truth that limits are infringements and infringements are limits regardless of whether you think a limit imposed by the government is not an infringement as long as that limit is what the government (and you) consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable"... or "logical" according to some standard or test the government itself thought up to justify imposing... limits (infrigements). A limit is an infringement regardless of who considers that limit to be Ok or what standard/test is used to justify that limit.

And if you haven't noticed when I quote you I do not change the words in those posts. I do sometimes -snip- out portions of postings that are not pertinent to what I wish to respond to but I do not change the actual words. There is a reason for that... it is called being honest and truthful and not trying to change what you said into what I want it to appear you have said. If you are going to quote me then have the decency to quote the words I actually said.

You intentionally change the words I said in a quote and then have the audacity to post the following?

Oh, you thought I was trying to convince someone. I don't know what you expect me to do about your false assumption.

I'm here simply to speak the truth. Whether or not others choose to accept it is up to them. They can accept correction like an adult, or deny the truth and continue to expose their ignorance, leave the thread in shame only to be embarrassed elsewhere, or they can kill themselves. The choice is theirs, I have no control.

Are you actually so arrogant as to think you are so special that you are here to offer ... correction? For some strange reason I thought we all were having a discussion wherein most were acting like adults as they offered cites and links as references to the truth but some did not act like adults as they hoped to bolster their argument (while exposing their willful? ignorance) using ridicule, insults, and changing the words other people said when they quoted them in an effort to elevate themselves by diminishing and demeaning those who do not agree with them.

And I have no doubt that anyone following this discussion can easily discern who is acting like an adult and who isn't.... and who's education has failed them.

 

[BluesStringer]

I'm here simply to speak the truth. Whether or not others choose to accept it is up to them. They can accept correction like an adult, or deny the truth and continue to expose their ignorance, leave the thread in shame only to be embarrassed elsewhere, or they can kill themselves. The choice is theirs, I have no control.

Oh, the irony!

 

[Blueshell]

You can ignore the plainly worded definitions from different dictionaries...

The definitions you cite do not say all limits are infringements. You are inferring text that is not written. Some infringements take the form of limits, that doesn't mean all limits are infringements.

The founding fathers envisioned a well trained and disciplined militia. Speaking from personal experience, that training and discipline necessarily includes verious limits, such as keeping your weapon secured. Anyone who's ever had any kind of law enforcement, private security, hunter's saftey or military training knows this.

"Always treat a gun as if it's loaded". That's a limit, not an infringement.

"Only point your gun at what you're willing to destroy". That's a limit, not an infringement.

"Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire". That's a limit, not an infringement.

The product in OP encourages a lack of the discipline which the founding fathers wanted every able-bodied citizen to practice.

 

[Blueshell]

You intentionally change the words I said in a quote and then have the audacity to post the following?

If you knew what ellipis and brackets were and how they're used then you wouldn't be saying this.

Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of dots (typically three, such as "…") that usually indicates an intentional omission of a word, sentence, or whole section from a text without altering its original meaning.

Brackets (parentheses) are punctuation marks used within a sentence to include information that is not essential to the main point. Information within parentheses is usually supplementary; were it removed, the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged.

A dishonest person would just change the words without taking any steps to make it clear they were doing so.

I took steps to make my changes obvious.

So you can go **** yourself on that one.

 

[Blueshell]

Oh, the irony!

Oh the stupidity!

 

[Hatchetman]

Oh the stupidity!

Yours has been shining brightly for weeks......

 

[Blueshell]

Yours has been shining brightly for weeks......

Says the guy who doesn't know what "shall not be infringed" means. **** you idiot.

 

[Hatchetman]

Says the guy who doesn't know what "shall not be infringed" means. **** you idiot.

Says the guy who has had it explained to him for weeks now and still doesnt get it, and in fact, keeps arguing that infringements are good, and supports them!

 

[Bikenut]

If you knew what ellipis and brackets were and how they're used then you wouldn't be saying this.

Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of dots (typically three, such as "…") that usually indicates an intentional omission of a word, sentence, or whole section from a text without altering its original meaning.

Brackets (parentheses) are punctuation marks used within a sentence to include information that is not essential to the main point. Information within parentheses is usually supplementary; were it removed, the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged.

A dishonest person would just change the words without taking any steps to make it clear they were doing so.

I took steps to make my changes obvious.

So you can go **** yourself on that one.

A dishonest person changes the words within a quote. And only a person who has nothing to support his argument resorts to insults and ridicule.

 

[Blueshell]

Says the guy who has had it explained to him for weeks now and still doesnt get it, and in fact, keeps arguing that infringements are good, and supports them!

I've never argued that infringements are good. You just lied.

 

[Blueshell]

A dishonest person changes the words within a quote.

Brackets indicate words outside of a quote. This is common in English, especially news articles where words or phrases that weren't originaly said are inserted to give the reader clarity. You don't even understand basic grammar yet you think you understand the second amendment.

It's "shall not be infringed" not "shal not be limited".

And only a person who has nothing to support his argument resorts to insults and ridicule.

That would include a number of posters on either side of the issue. If you don't like being called an idiot, then stop being an idiot.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You can ignore the plainly worded definitions from different dictionaries...

The definitions you cite do not say all limits are infringements. You are inferring text that is not written. Some infringements take the form of limits, that doesn't mean all limits are infringements.

The founding fathers envisioned a well trained and disciplined militia. Speaking from personal experience, that training and discipline necessarily includes verious limits, such as keeping your weapon secured. Anyone who's ever had any kind of law enforcement, private security, hunter's saftey or military training knows this.

"Always treat a gun as if it's loaded". That's a limit, not an infringement.

"Only point your gun at what you're willing to destroy". That's a limit, not an infringement.

"Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire". That's a limit, not an infringement.

The product in OP encourages a lack of the discipline which the founding fathers wanted every able-bodied citizen to practice.

The definitions I cited and linked to plainly state that limits are infringements. Limits are infringements... period. No wishy washy anything... plain statements that limits are infringements. Got that? The plain reading of the definitions I cited and linked to state without any qualifications added that limits are infringements.

And the definitions I cited do not say that some limits are NOT infringements. Seems you are inferring text that is not written.....

The Founding Fathers recognized that in order to have a fighting force that could be called up during a time of war then the individual people must already have ... arms... to bring with them to form the fighting force called... the militia. And the Founding Fathers recognized that the individual people have the right, the freedom, to store (to KEEP) their arms anywhere they want... including over the mantle, leaning in the corner by the door, hidden under the bed, or even boxes of any kind.

By the way... the Founding Fathers stated a "well regulated militia"... not your personal belief they were talking about a "well trained and disciplined militia"... want to know what "well regulated" means in the context of the right to bear arms? Follow the link.........

Link Removed

And the examples of things that you think are limits but not infringements... your examples above... would become limits/infringements the minute the government requires them... but since the government doesn't require them they are nothing more than good advice that a person can choose not to follow if they wish. It is the REQUIRED part that makes the difference. And it is your attitude, your belief, that the limits you would have the government require (such as limiting what products are not allowed on the market) are not infringements that show you do not understand what an infringement upon a right is. But your posts certainly do show that you fully understand your desire to inflict the infringements you like onto other people.

Whether you know it or not... your attempts at justifying your belief that it is OK to limit the right to keep arms in tissue boxes because some limits, you know.. the limits you personally think are "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable"... aren't really infringements simply because you want those limits imposed on other people are becoming more and more of a reach and are failing miserably.

But then.. as has been the case for quite some time.. I'm not particularly interested in talking to you since it is painfully obvious you are unable to understand definitions in plain black and white writing. My responses to your posts are intended to counter your skewed perspective and give anyone reading this discussion actual facts for them to consider.