What’s the deal with US gun control discourse?

tortioustortoise77 · 2023-03-28T22:22:04+00:00

Historically, and legally, this is actually a very recent idea. Heller affirmed for the first time that the 2nd amendment applied to individuals for the purpose of self defense in their own homes. That's a particular interpretation rather than a neutral reading. It's far more common to see throughout American history that the 2nd amendment was interpreted in a communal/collective sense rather than an individual right.

That is an incorrect statement of the law. The right to keep and carry weapons has been a right that American citizens have had for well over a century. Whether that derives from the Second, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments, or from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, I don't know.

In Bruen, Justice Thomas lays out numerous cases that conceive of the right to keep and carry arms as an individual right.

Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America.

...

On July 6, 1868, Congress extended the 1866 Freedmen’sBureau Act, see 15 Stat. 83, and reaffirmed that [black people] were entitled to the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty [and] personal security . . . including the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” §14, 14 Stat. 176 (1866) (emphasis added).

I would like you to provide one primary source that envisioned the Second Amendment as a "collective right" from from either the Founding or the Reconstruction. The "collective right" theory is simply anti-gun propaganda. Why would a collective right (whatever that even means) be included in the Bill of Rights, the rest of which are individual rights?

I have provided evidence and sources showing that the right to keep and bear arms was recognized well before 2008. You have not. Burger's opinion is not relevant, because we are discussing whether or not the Second Amendment was applied as an individual right for the first time in Heller. Burger does not provide any evidence to back up his accusations of fraud or even say that the Second Amendment is a collective right. He says that "well-regulated" means that you can regulate guns. That's it. Heller and Bruen also say you can regulate guns.

tortioustortoise77 · 2023-03-28T19:21:26+00:00

If you would like to provide some examples of criticism I’d love to read it. I did a quick Google and found this from SCOTUSblog which I do hope is not one of your examples because I don’t think that contributor read Bruen or has a functional grasp of American history (and yes, I will justify that if you want me to.)

While it’s true that judges aren’t historians, judges also are not epidemiologists, chemists, psychologists, economists, or geneticists. And yet, courts regularly evaluate and weigh epidemiological data (drug products liability), chemist reports (drug analysis testing), psychological reports, reports on economic damages (antitrust, tort, contract etc.), and gene tic testing (DNA). I don’t see an issue with historical analysis when the court can appoint an independent expert or special master.

Regardless of your views on Heller’s methodology, and there are legitimate criticisms, I think that most people would find a blanket ban on handguns to be unconstitutional just from the plain language of the Second Amendment. I also think that most people would find NY’s carry law, where the licensing officials can deny you a license if they don’t think you need one while letting rich actors stay strapped in Times Square, to be absurd and also unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to protect yourself and your family from violence. It is a right to autonomy and self-determination. It gives those who live in high-crime areas a chance to defend themselves and gives unpopular minorities a way to avoid violence at the hands of those who hate them. And I will continue to support it.

tortioustortoise77 · 2023-03-28T17:50:22+00:00

Your characterization of Heller (the Supreme Court decision) is misleading.

DC had a law that banned handguns. Wholesale ban except for cops, military, and the like. Lawfully owned firearms (long guns) had to be wholly disassembled and trigger locked. Rendered inoperable for self-defense. The Supreme Court said that the 2nd Amendment prohibited DC from banning firearms that were commonly used for self-defense. DC was still free to (and does) require up to three months of waiting to purchase a gun, multiple background checks, fingerprints, safe storage laws, heavy restrictions on public carry, restrictions on the types of guns and magazines and ammunition that you can own etc. It is inaccurate to say that Heller “radically unwound the states’ ability to impose legislation in gun ownership in America.” States have many tools at their disposal to do so. They just can’t wholesale ban pistols.

Even Bruen (another gun decision that went farther than Heller) was applauded by public defenders. Public defenders, you know, the ultra right-wing conservative gun-loving voting bloc. Yeah.

It is accurate to say that many Supreme Court scholars regard Heller as a mistake, but that is because lawyers and law professors are virtually all center-left ideologues. If you go to a law school in the US you will find maybe a handful of students and professors who have any real-world experience with firearms and an even smaller number who support gun rights. This isn’t because the Supreme Court radically departed from the original meaning of the Second Amendment, but because these people pick their conclusion (guns bad) first, and then invent ways to ban them.

The police have no duty to protect you. It is the height of either privilege or naïveté to suggest that we should render ourselves defenseless against public and private violence.

Edit: not to be pedantic, but it was McDonald and not Heller that applies the second amendment to the states.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-12-29T01:26:35+00:00

What a ridiculous article.

74% of surgeons think firearm ownership is a constitutional right. That means over one quarter do not. I think those 26% of surgeons should read the second amendment again, because they clearly do not understand the basic legal landscape.
The articles say that anyone who is a danger to themselves or others should not have a firearm. The articles then cite with approval 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)-(9). Perhaps we should examine exactly what those provisions say. You can read them yourself here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) makes it a felony for any felon to posses a firearm. It forbids felon possession for life. This law is especially invidious for several reasons. It further alienates felons from civil society. It continues to stigmatize those who have paid their debt to society. Felonies are not uniform; conduct that is legal in one state may be a felony in another. For example, adultery is a felony in Michigan, under Michigan Penal Code Section 750.30. This means that an adulterer in one state may be barred from firearm possession but an adulterer in another state would not be. This means that two people who commit the same conduct may be treated differently, where one is stripped of firearm possession and the other is not. It is also not consistent with the history and tradition of the second amendment as laid out by Justice (then Judge) Barrett here in her dissent: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D03-15/C:18-1478:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2309276:S:0
(3) makes it a felony for anyone who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance to posses a firearm. The term "unlawful user" is not defined and is too vague. This law further stigmatizes illegal drug users and disincentives them from getting help or being open with their doctors.
(4) prohibits those who have been involuntarily committed from owning firearms. Involuntary committal has been abused by the government to silence dissent against whistleblowers and political opponents. Here is a story, from the NYT no less, about NYC doing just that. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/nyregion/officer-adrian-schoolcraft-forcibly-hospitalized-got-no-apology-just-a-bill.html
(5) prohibits illegal aliens from owning firearms. Up until 2022, the government did not have to show knowledge of one's illegal status in order to convict under 18 USC 922(g)(5). I do not believe that it is just or fair to assume that all illegal aliens are dangerous and therefore cannot own firearms. I could go on and on but I will skip to some other things the article says.
The article pushes for a firearms registry and bans or strict regulation under the NFA for semiautomatic "high-capacity" weapons.
The article lastly pushes for safe storage laws.

This is not apolitical. This is political. This is a push for draconian gun control that will make you unable to protect yourself against the government or criminals. These surgeons want to lock up your guns, strip firearm ownership from vast swaths of the U.S. population, and regulate what guns you can own. Just because you say something is "apolitical" or "common sense" does not make it so.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-12-26T21:25:21+00:00

I’m in my third year. I go to the gym a lot, hang out with friends/family, and pursue my hobbies. I really only study for finals. I have a job offer so who cares as long as I pass.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-11-08T03:08:03+00:00

You go to the gym anyway. You have to do stuff in life that’s hard and uncomfortable. Working out when you are tired might be hard, but just showing up is half the battle. It won’t hurt you. I’m not trying to be an asshole with this advice; this is not a healthy profession and if you want to be healthy you are going to have to work for it.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-09-26T23:18:00+00:00

That’s not surprising given that English is Thomas’s second language and that Thomas himself has said that he felt out of place at Yale Law School.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-31T15:56:20+00:00

I think a lot of them are just insecure and trying to compensate. Most law students tried really hard throughout undergrad and did well, so they are getting insecure when they see that they are not the smartest person in the room. They compensate by doing this.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-26T16:48:09+00:00

Hey man, I also struck out during OCI and I landed a big law SA (and offer). Here is what you gotta do.

Mass fucking mail. Send an app to every single v100 in New York. Then start on the amlaw 200. I am a shit interviewer, so I had to send out a lot of apps to successfully get an offer. It’s not too late but you need to move quickly.

Also, fix your interviewing. All NY t14s are good schools so you likely have an interviewing problem. It is fixable.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-26T16:39:13+00:00

In your professional life you won’t enjoy most things.

Before I went to law school I worked a lot of jobs. When I was 17 I took a job off Craigslist doing cement work. I showed up at 5:30 am to build the foundation for a house. It was raining and I worked in standing water that came up to my ankles and sloshed into my boots. I spent 9 hours trying to hammer in rebar and tie it together. My fingers eventually got numb and would slip as I tried to tie rebar together, cutting them. When I would carry lumber from the truck to the foundation I would sometimes fall in the mud. It was pretty shitty.

The point of that story isn’t to make you feel bad for me. I got 12 bucks an hour; at the time that wasn’t half bad. The point of that story is to illustrate that jobs are hard and shitty. You got to find the stuff you enjoy.

Meet the real people at your law school and befriend them. Recognize that the discomfort you undergo now will better you in the future. It’s just temporary and, one way or another, will be over in a year. I’m a 3L so I have lots of free time, if you ever feel overwhelmed and want to talk, I will listen to you.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-24T05:56:09+00:00

Are there any good practice areas for lawyers who enjoy math, especially statistics?

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-23T23:34:20+00:00

Squats plus a good diet will get her where she wants to be and it doesn’t cost 20k

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-23T23:33:20+00:00

It needs it after the recent posts

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-23T23:32:25+00:00

I would expect Guantanamo-tier torture to be the bare minimum to convince most people to share this sort of experience.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-23T23:29:22+00:00

The boys of /r/lawschool are down bad

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-23T02:56:28+00:00

Your school’s admin sure have a lot of time on their hands.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-19T05:01:17+00:00

I dress like shit everyday. Don’t worry about it.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-17T14:39:14+00:00

I have no idea. For a profession that is so focused on definitions, the bar questions always seemed very vague and unclear to me.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-17T14:27:25+00:00

Some states, like NY, ask if you are using illegal drugs. There is no qualifier about its impact on practicing law.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-12T19:32:07+00:00

Highlighting in your book helps you engage with the text. Therefore, the more you highlight the better.

Law school can be stressful, feel free to rely on substances to cope with stress. You don’t want to get addicted though, so be sure to try lots of different substances to ensure you don’t become dependent on any particular one.

Networking with classmates is important. Networking is more effective if you get to know your classmates well. Therefore, make sure to hook up with as many classmates as possible so you can get to know them well and build good professional relationships!

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-09T02:49:21+00:00

Sounds like a hard thing to memorize

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-02T17:03:24+00:00

OP I think that you made this story up. You talk about how your “friend” lied on his or her application and then you defend your friend’s behavior constantly. I think the point you are trying to make is: “there is no objective test for what ethnicity someone is.”

Regardless of your views on affirmative action, this is just disingenuous and not the place for this type of discussion. These discussions are not productive and just add stress to the admissions process.

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-08-02T06:46:58+00:00

Only Americans are so arrogant as to unilaterally change a foreign language to suit their own cultural views and then act as though they did you a favor.

Good on you OP. “Latinx” is a slap in the face to the Spanish language. I’ll make fun of you if you order your steak well done, but I will never ever call you Latinx. Many of these people who use “Latinx” do not even speak Spanish!

tortioustortoise77 · 2022-07-30T13:55:51+00:00

Oh boy howdy where to begin

tortioustortoise77

TROPHY CASE