Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: 9th Circuit strikes down... (478 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is that all it means, period and exclamation point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Glen The Plumber

    with a hundred exclamation points at the end??????????

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:13:35 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hint: think long and hard about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, Glen The Plumber

      what regulation means.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:21:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you talking about (13+ / 0-)

        Hopefully not the tired, refuted, disproved, then refuted again notion that "regulated" militia has anything to do with regulating of arms.

        •  Nope. Talking about regulation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          88kathy, Glen The Plumber

          this is California, after all.

          If you read the block quote from WaPo, this decision had nothing to do with regulation.

          Be sure that CA is going to fill in the blanks on that one.

          My point is, don't go barreling for California for your high paying jobs just yet.

          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

          by coquiero on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:29:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They don't print enough money (14+ / 0-)

            For me to move to California.

            The decision had to do with the principle of a de facto ban. The state has a right to set reasonable requirements. They do not have a right to impose requirements that prevent virtually all people from being permitted because there is an explicit constitutional right to be armed in public.

            •  Insurance = requirements that prevent people (4+ / 0-)

              from being permitted?

              You must not drive much.  Maybe you live in an uninsured house, but most people do not.

              I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

              by coquiero on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:45:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  However (7+ / 0-)

                I am not REQUIRED to insure my house. I am only required to insure my car to drive it on public roads. I can buy a car and drive it around my own property without insurance or registration. Which is why you might have some hope for insurance as a requirement to carry in public. However, if that insurance prices most people out of carrying the courts will probably not look kindly on it.

              •  The right to own a vehicle... (9+ / 0-)

                ...and operate it on public roads is not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution or BoR.

                There is generally NO government requirement that you carry insurance on your house (maybe, somewhere, it's a requirement, but I've never heard of such a case). In fact, if you own your home, you're generally completely free to go without HO insurance (if you have a mortgage, your mortgage holder will probably require you to have HO insurance though).

                Excessive insurance requirements for carry (open or concealed) will almost certainly be struck down by the courts if this ruling stands just as excessive insurance requirements to peaceably assemble would be rightfully struck down.

                •  Who said excessive? And I'm aware that car (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco

                  and home are not "enshrined in the Constitution", but just because guns are "enshrined in the Constitution" doesn't exempt them from liability.

                  I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                  by coquiero on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:50:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If not excessive... (4+ / 0-)

                    ...i.e., not a significant deterrent to anyone including the poorest person (with, perhaps, government subsidies), I'd agree an insurance requirement might pass muster.

                  •  I have my doubts... (7+ / 0-)

                    about your definition of "excessive."

                    I suspect, although I admit that I cannot prove it by any post of yours that I recall, that the real reason that you advocate for mandatory insurance requirements for simple firearms ownership, let alone public carry of guns, is that you hope that it will be expensive and inconvenient enough that very few people will want to go through it.

                    That will, of course, minimize the number of people who can do what you don't think they should be allowed to do in the first place.

                    I'd point out that the people who would be able to jump through the hoops that you would put between them and the ability to be armed would be overwhelmingly the rich, the powerful, the connected... in other words, exactly the people that I can't imagine any liberal wanting to be the only ones with guns.

                    --Shannon

                    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                    by Leftie Gunner on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:38:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are actually wrong about that (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, poco, Miggles

                      I don't believe that practicing the 2nd amendment should be out of reach for anyone, nor should it be regulated so that only rich people can practice it.

                      But I do believe that people can practice their second amendment rights in much more limited ways that some here see fit.  If purchasing liability insurance makes it prohibitively expensive to own 30 weapons, I do not have a problem with that.

                      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                      by coquiero on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:56:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have over 30. (6+ / 0-)

                        I like guns, and my Dad liked guns, and between his collection and mine, well, let's just say that there's quite a few of them. For that matter, I will be expanding my collection soon. Not because I "need" any more guns, as if need was a relevant parameter in this debate, but simply because I want them and will be able to afford them. I also reload, cast my own bullets, and have several pounds of powder (reloading for a bunch of different cartridges makes that inevitable,) and a few thousand rounds of loaded ammunition on hand at all times.

                        I am a danger to nobody, unless and until they present themselves as a danger to me and mine. In which case, if I didn't have a gun handy, I'd use a knife, or a stick, or a rock, or whatever force multiplier I could get my hands on. Unless it's life or death, it's not worth fighting over, and if it is life or death, there is no such thing as a fair fight... the only rule at that point is survival.

                        What kind of insurance would satisfy you in my case?

                        As has been pointed out every time the idea of "gun owner's insurance" comes up, a liability rider to my homeowner's insurance wouldn't be too much money... well under 100 bucks. Somehow, I don't think that would satisfy you... mostly because it hasn't done so in any other conversation you've been involved in on this question.

                        Because insurance, as insurance, isn't, and never has been, the point. If it isn't useful as an obstacle, your fervor seems to dissipate...

                        --Shannon

                        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                        by Leftie Gunner on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:00:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Then you misunderstand me (3+ / 0-)

                          I may have little respect for people who collect guns because they think they're fun.  I may think they contribute to an out of control gun culture a symptom of which is an intractable point of view and an inability to compromise on the smallest points, because of deep suspicions that every one is out to get you, but what I really am looking for is for gun owners to practice their rights safely for EVERYONE.  

                          So if $100 will cover your entire arsenal for liability, I think that's just fine.  As I said, if liability becomes prohibitively expensive for people who hold arsenals for fun, I'm ok with that, but if it doesn't, I'm ok with that, too.

                          I'd like to see guns registered.  I know gun owners tend to freak out over that one, but unless you are so paranoid that you think that registration will lead to confiscation (as so many here seem to), I can not see the problem with it.

                          I'd like to see extensive training required for gun permits.  I'd like to see proof of safe storage.

                          You mistake my judgement of your owning guns because they're super fun for fervor to control you.  I don't want to control you, I want to force gun owners to be safer.  Just like I like to see the government force car manufacturers and drivers to be safe.

                          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                          by coquiero on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 04:47:41 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Define "safer" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wordsinthewind

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 05:02:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  zealots will never be satisfied (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            until they control everyone to conform to their beliefs. They will not compromise and they will hound anyone who disagrees with them hoping that sheer persistence will make them prevail. It is not possible to have a discussion with a True Believer, if you won't bow down to their demands they just get nasty. As we've seen.

                            "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." Lewis Carroll

                            by Wordsinthewind on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 05:10:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A definition of safer would be the oppoosite (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh

                            of how you and Gary Kleck define it:

                            This month’s cover of the National Rifle Association’s magazine America’s 1st Freedom shows a young, petite, blue-eyed, blond woman staring coldly ahead, a handgun held tightly in her outstretched arms. The cover story asks “Who is the Armed Citizen?” A side bar in this story is titled “Defensive Gun Uses Per Year”. Here the reader is fed, once again, the lies and distortions of the gun lobby.

                            The sidebar highlights one of the gun lobby’s favorite pieces of research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses each year in the United States. But for some curious reason the author neglected to mention the numerous, peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles that have been published over the last decade that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim.

                            http://necpgv.blogspot.com/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 05:10:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow. A blog. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wordsinthewind

                            Here's what the CDC report commissioned by Pres. Obama had to say:

                            “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,”
                            Your irrational fear is based in ignorance.
                            Educate yourself. Stop being afraid.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:00:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess you have a short memory - we had this (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Miggles, Smoh

                            discussion yesterday ... remember? That report is nothing more than a review of the existing research - most of which on the pro gun side consists of junk "science" from Gary Kleck and John Lott.

                            That report is an invitation to those "scholars" to enter the realm of free speech and science, and with the other scientists that are again funded and creating new research, try to solve the problem of gun violence.

                            It doesn't surprise me that you are leaning on Lott and Kleck to make your - cough - "case".

                            This story is from earlier in the week, but somehow I missed it. Noted fraudster and gun policy researcher John Lott has apparently been admitted back into polite society again. As Media Matters reports, on April 25, Lott published a garbage, error-riddled op ed in the New York Daily News about Florida’s infamous “Stand Your Ground” laws. Just a day earlier, he was cited respectfully in a vomitorious New York Times “trend piece on concealed carry clothing for the ‘fashion aware gun owner’.”

                            As we say in my ancestral homeland of New Jersey, I gottaproblemwiththat.

                            Lott is problematic on a number of levels. First of all, his famous research that purports to show that more guns lead to less crime is incredibly shoddy from the standpoint of social science methodology. So much so, in fact, that back in grad school an econometrics professor of mine taught a class based on Lott’s dataset, which basically amounted to an entire course in how not to do quantitative social science research.

                            http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:11:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hence, the word 'report'. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wordsinthewind
                            review of the existing research
                            That is correct. Existing research that shows that "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals"

                            Again. I'm not leaning on Kleck.
                            I'm quoting the CDC report commissioned by Pres. Obama & you are refuting it, because "CONSPIRACY!!1!!"

                            Real Clash of the Titans in terms of credibility.
                            Good luck with that.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:16:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   I posted a link to that report, apparently you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Miggles, Smoh

                            didn't bother to actually read it - shocker.

                            If you had, you would have seen Kleck in the bibliography.

                            But, don't let those kinds of pertinent details get in the way of your "defensive gun use" fantasy.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:21:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. Kleck was one of the people found to (0+ / 0-)

                            be competent enough to be a part of a CDC report commissioned by President Obama.

                            I have no idea how you think that strengthens your argument.

                            get in the way of your "defensive gun use" fantasy.
                            Again. Not mine. The CDC's.

                            Sorry the CDC doesn't pass muster for We Shall Overcome on Daily Kos.
                            Real fucking heartbreaker for the CDC, I'm sure.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:26:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More SPAM - we went through this yesterday, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Miggles, Smoh

                            I posted a link to the report itself, and to several reports that who Kleck's "research" is not accepted as reliable.

                            Of course, you don't bother to read and absorb those because you aren't here to learn, debate or persuade - you are hear to harass people with spam and insults.

                            The reason Kleck was included in the CDC report is because that is all the pro gun side has got - junk science. And apparently, it continues to fool even the best of us.

                            So, Kleck is there in the spirit of "bipartisanship" and, this is just my opinion but I think it's a good one - he and the pro gun "researchers" are being led to a slaughter.

                            They want Kleck to open his mouth so he can be thoroughly debunked and discredited in front of a new generation who probably are not aware that his junk science.

                            But, feel free to continue your SPAM and harassment - I am pretty sure you have convinced just about everyone on this site your word's not worth any more than Kleck's.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:35:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wan't only Kleck's study that was reviewed. (0+ / 0-)

                            Try 'reading':

                            Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,”
                            "Almost all" doesn't mean 'one'.
                            So, Kleck is there in the spirit of "bipartisanship" and, this is just my opinion but I think it's a good one - he and the pro gun "researchers" are being led to a slaughter.
                            Oh good. Speculation on the future results of your unsubstantiated fantasies of "CONSPIRACY!!".

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:42:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Kleck did more than one study and guess what, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Miggles, Smoh

                            there are more researchers than just Kleck, including many on the gun safety side. So, Kleck's "work" could be 5 of the "all" and the ones on the other side of the debate would be the ones on the lower end of the estimates.

                            And if you bothered to read the report you would learn that Kleck's research has impregnated most other pro gun "reports", ie, the word "reports" is used loosely.

                            Did you ever read the report - or just the article that reviewed the report that you are block quoting from?

                            And, you haven't answered my previous question - did you vote for Obama and Kerry? Because if you did, then you supported taking rights from innocent Americans.

                            Sorry to crush your tag line.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:48:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)
                            So, Kleck's "work" could be 5 of the "all"
                            It's not. But I'm glad to see that you have decided to completely disassociate yourself with reality.
                            Often times a clean break is the best.
                            And if you bothered to read the report you would learn that Kleck's research has impregnated most other pro gun "reports"
                            This is the sexiest CONSPIRACY theory you've come up with yet.
                            Much more entertaining than the factual based CDC report.
                            did you vote for Obama and Kerry?
                            Yes.
                            Because if you did, then you supported taking rights from innocent Americans.
                            No.
                            But thanks for showing us what not 'grasping for straws' looks like.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:28:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's another read for you. It seems to hit the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh

                            nail on the head on what seems to be motivating you to comment on DKos:

                            In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet "trolls" (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics.

                            That's bad, but it's nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of so-called trolls themselves. The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called "Dark Tetrad": Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).

                            http://m.motherjones.com/...

                            You insult and SPAM in every comment.

                            Instead, maybe you could post thoughtful diaries that make a point and stop harassing people.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 06:10:55 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Better yet, maybe I'll post a diary of your (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh

                            greatest hits in the context of this article:

                            In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet "trolls" (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics.

                            That's bad, but it's nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of so-called trolls themselves. The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called "Dark Tetrad": Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).

                            http://m.motherjones.com/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 06:27:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Calls someone a 'troll'. (Insult) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mandell

                            Posts the same motherjones article twice, to the same comment. (SPAM)

                            Projection.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 09:51:06 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Didn't call you a troll - said it seemed like you (0+ / 0-)

                            might be one. But regardless, actions speak louder than words.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 10:00:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Exactly how (0+ / 0-)

                            Ham replied to Nye.

                            I dismiss your evidence because I don't want to think about it.

                            Very well done.  Can I hire you for entertainment at parties?

                          •  It would certainly not be how you define it. (0+ / 0-)

                            The evidence shows not even correlation between more gun control and less crime.

                            You literally have to imagine a scenario that science says doesn't exist in order to continue to present your idea.  Nyre pretty much trounced Ham when he tried to present a case based on faith that contradicted observable evidence so you're not in the best company.

                    •  Leftie, have you had time (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero

                      to look at the other two cases?

                      The 9th Circuit heard 3 similar cases all at the same time, (on the same day, IIRC). The Hawaii case was waiting for the Peruta case.

                      Will they all be heard by the same panel? What will happen if the three different panels disagree?

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:58:27 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  As far as I know, (6+ / 0-)

                        They were all heard by the same panel, I think on the same day. I'd expect decisions soon, but then, Peruta was argued in 2012, so what do I know?

                        The best information and analysis I've seen so far on this case has been at the Volokh Conspiracy (now at wapo.com) and Calguns.net.

                        Fair warning:
                        Calguns is a Vbulletin forum... so you'll have to wade through dozens of "yay!!!" and "+1!!!11!!" posts to get to the good dope... but the lawyers who argued this case, and a bunch of who filed amicus briefs post there. I wouldn't recommend signing up for an account, someone with your views wouldn't be welcomed... to put it mildly. But you can read without joining, and there's a LOT of good info in there. Just got to dig through a lot of bullshit to get it... as it always is, everywhere.

                        --Shannon

                        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                        by Leftie Gunner on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:08:43 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                          Yes, I just found my old notes. All three cases had oral arguments on Dec 6th, by the same panel.

                          As far as I can tell, it's the first court to undertake a historical analysis, the kind that Heller said they were leaving for another day. It's about time. Do you think that is what SCOTUS was waiting for?

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:20:16 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  They do make enough for me! (5+ / 0-)

              I'd move back to CA for a billion, as long as I could live right across the border from OR. A billion $$$$$ to live in CA?
              Any day!!

              DID I SAY BILLION???!!!  I MEANT HALF A BILLION!!!
              but no! whoa!! I'm going crazy!!   You can get me to move back to CA for a mere $300 million dollars

              Offer not available in stores

              Happy just to be alive

              by exlrrp on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 03:08:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site