On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:53:09 -0800, Gunner
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:28:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:15:53 -0800, Gunner
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:34:00 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
Yup. But even in 1828, as Webster tells us, the "encroach" usage was
still "little used."
But infringed was used.
Yes, in the sense of "broken." As in, completely violated. Not in the
sense of "encroached upon."
That's why Heller et al. says that regulations are permitted.
In fact, it was a corruption. "Infringe" derives from Latin, "to
break." "Fringe" derives from a back formation meaning "thread," or,
literally, "fringe."
Different roots. Different meanings. And as Webster (1828) says,
"infringed" had only one side of the meaning: "pp. Broken; violated;
transgresses."
So the right to keep and bear arms shall not be broken, violated or
transgressed upon. Thanks!!
No "encroached." That had not yet reached common usage. In law, it
still is not what the word means. Break or violate is the legal usage.
Odd...you changed it again. Why..didnt like your Broken, violated,
transgresses when I slammed you in the teeth with them?
Those were the things I pointed out days ago, and then you keep
bringing up the meanings equivalent to "encroached." Shall I post an
example?
Post all the bull**** you want. The Founders used Infringed, not
"encroached". I gave you the English definition of Infringed. Deal
with it.
Hmm. It looks like you chose the one that means "encroached." g
You pulled out the SECOND meaning and you ignored the first meaning.
Do you think the FFs intended the secondary meaning over the primary
one? Here's what you posted:
=======================================
Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
. 2. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
=======================================
For the first one, I'll refer you to your own link:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/infringe
Quit trying to b.s. your way through, Gunner. You should know by now
that you aren't going to get away with it.
And I'll refer you again to the 1828 edition of Webster's -- the first
American dictionary -- for a better understanding of the
contemporaneous meaning:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,infringe
I think you slammed yourself in the teeth there, Gunner. As the courts
have said, your right isn't "infringed" unless they keep you from
owning a gun.
Your opinion is noted.
It's not my opinion. It's the clear opinion of the Supreme Court --
all of the conservative Justices, who were the majority in Heller.
And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?
Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.
One of. What part of the Founders writings did you and your
Leftwingers seem to ignore..other than ALL of them?
It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)
And we are back to Scalia again. Fascinating. Shall we go back to
Dred Scott again too? Hummm
Only if you want to keep hanging your hat on decisions that have bneen
overturned.
Oh...but they were LAW..and you wish to ..hell you desire to live
under bad law written by assholes with negative agendas.
You mean, like the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court? I have
to keep reminding myself that you know better than them, that they're
just assholes with negative agendas, and you knew the Founders
personally...
If I violate your decisions, nothing happens. If I violate theirs,
I've got real trouble. g
Ayup..you
are indeed a Blue Stater, and you love it there from the looks of it.
I like it well enough to have lived here for about 50 of my 64 years.
So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?
Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.
No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon.
It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.
In DC..they were not allowed. In NYC..you couldnt get a liscense.
INFRINGED.
Nope.
Cites? Bring em up..and Ill slap em right back in your teeth
Try it. In fact, here's the list of licensed handgun owners in NYC:
(first, an explanation)
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-ne...ermit-holders/
(next, the list)
http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-...-new-york-city
Getting a "premises permit" in NYC is a PITA, but as you can see,
plenty of people have done it.
What you're doing is mixing up carry permits with premises permits.
There are some carry permits in NYC, but not many.
The situation there is a lot like the whole state of NJ, although
getting a permit to purchase is easier in NJ. Getting a carry permit
here is only slightly more likely than in NYC. I don't know of anyone
who has one, but, as I said, one of my former physicians has a NYC
carry permit.
How are your teeth holding up, Gunner? From here it looks like you
were hit with a boomerang. d8-)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pe...ml#HowDoIApply
"How do I apply for a handgun license?
Applicants must personally appear and submit a signed application to
the License Division when applying. Fees may be paid by credit card or
with two money orders. The application fee is $340.00. Effective March
19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50. "
That is not even a CCW permit...but a $450 fee to simply OWN a
handgun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
" all the states that issue carry pistol licenses, New York State has
arguably the strictest handgun licensing policies in the nation.[9]
New York City, which is effectively a "no-issue" jurisdiction for
carry pistol licenses,[10] has even stricter laws, including those
regulating handguns exclusively kept at home, thereby making it
difficult to virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain,
possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.[11]
(This is horse****. That whole Wikipedia entry is poorly written and
full of contradictions. "Ordinary citizens" can "obtain" and "possess"
handguns -- if they want to jump through the hoops and spend a pile of
money.)
The constitutionality of many of New York's restrictive firearms laws,
including the newly-enacted SAFE Act, are being challenged by lawsuits
at the state and federal levels."
****ing Infringed! You damned well know it..yet you toss it into
the mix so I can respond and make you look like an utter ******?????
You really better learn to read your own stuff, Gunner. I only said
that you can own a handgun in NYC. I didn't say you were likely to get
a carry permit.
I know a physician who has a NYC carry permit. The gun nutz keep
saying they aren't allowed. That's not true.
So are they like LA carry permits? 9 million residents and 37 permits
to big campaign doners?
Something like that. The difference between D.C. and Chicago, on one
hand, and NYC, on the other, is that the first two had NO provision
for owning a handgun. The Court says that's unconstitutional. NYC
does, but it would be up to the courts to decide if their regulations
are so onerous that they violate the Constitution. It seems unlikely,
given the extensive list in that Gawker article. A lot of people
managed to jump through the hoops.
Carry permits are not an issue. I didn't mention them, and the Supreme
Court said in Heller that it is not questioning several types of
regulations. Interestingly, and confusingly, they listed 19th century
prohibitions against carrying guns as examples of the historical basis
for regulations. But they didn't include carrying, except in specific
places, in their short list of regulations they aren't questioning.
This one's a crapshoot, should it reach the Supreme Court.
There are several versions of that Gawker list floating around, and
note that some of them are not actually handgun permit lists. But it's
not in question that there are several thousand premises permits for
handguns issued in NYC. The list in Gawker apparently is legit, for
2010.
The truth is, they're "may issue," just like NJ, and they're damned
hard to get. But the Court didn't define what restrictions would be
allowed, so it will be unlikely that a case reaches the Court from a
denial in NYC.
Chuckle...see the last line in the quote from Wiki.....VBG
We'll see. The whole law (SAFE Act) is severable, and I don't see
anything in there that's a clear violation of the terms laid down in
Heller. But you never know.
What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.
Yet if you read the Founders words...The Right to keep and Bear Arms
Shall not be Infringed...its pretty must graven in stone. NO INFRINGED
Not broken. Not violated. As long as you can have guns, the right is
not infringed.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Yet you
yourself admitted "they are damned hard to get" and only for 'special
people"
I didn't say only for special people. But that only applies to the
carry law. It isn't clear that the S.C. would overturn that no matter
what the terms of NYC's carry law are. If it were me, and if I were a
lawyer, I think I'd attack it on 14th Amendment grounds. But the Court
may well not even grant cert on a challenge to a carry law. See
Heller.
And you dont consider it to be infringement of the worst sort.
Fascinating.
I object to NYC's carry law because of its unequal application -- a
14th Amendment case. I generally favor shall-issue CCW laws, with
sturdy background checks and training requirements. But if the
question is constitutionality, I think you're sucking wind.
You and your Leftwinger buddies have spewed your desires for so
long...even the courts are either afraid of rocking the boat too
badly..or are afraid of you and yours.
Is that your new ride in Gun Nutz Fantasyland? Do you need a ticket
for that?
Keep dreaming Blue Stater. Laugh laugh laugh. Hell..even here in
Leftwing California...we can get CCWs.
You keep bouncing back and forth between handgun possession and CCW.
You should first make up your mind about where you think the
constitutional problem is.
So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.
That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.
They simply need to review the 2nd Amendment, written in 1787
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be Infringed.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Right. And if you can own a gun for personal, legal use (such as
self-defense), your right is not infringed. Nothing more, nothing
less.
And in NYC? No-issue CCW except for the very very few.....and
Chicago..a gun ban.
Heller doesn't say carry bans are unconstitutional. The Court may or
may not consider that to be an infringement. I have a problem with
those bans -- especially the highly selective permitting as in NYC --
but I'm more interested in what the law will be, under the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd in Heller. So far, I think they have it
right.
Hell..even Morton Grove gave up that ghost decades ago
That was a ban on ownership. Are we back to that now, or are you still
on CCW?
You blue staters...idiots of the very worst sort.
Gunner
You only say that because you know we understand the Heller decision,
and you hate it.
--
Ed Huntress