Remove the tax on Firearms/Ammo?

From what I remember, alanb is a lawyer that does 2nd Amendment cases. I'm guessing he has more knowledge in this area than you do. You should probably go back to Mayberry.

Then he should go back to school bc he needs to learn how to read case law correctly. He doesn't get to make up what the law is just bc he feels like it
 
Some sane people aren't willing to take the disastrous and unnecessary in order to bow down to pendaticalness.


You should probably read Byron's previous train wreck on the subject before commenting further on his ability to interpret.

"Some" sounds like not enough to actually change the law via the prescribed process. Too bad so sad. I bet you don't mind citing the Constitution over the rights you do enjoy.

What comment did I make in support of Byron's interpretational ability?


this is the last time i'm going to explain this b/c i really can't tolerate the insufferable cuntery of conservatives when it comes to the boner they have for their guns.

1. heller and mcdonald are LANDMARK gun rights cases. no supreme court has ever ruled in this fashion on either one.
2. heller applied ONLY to federal jurisdictions and established (for the first time ever) that there was an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes.

this is the point of confusion (b/c you are stupid) - this did not mean the second amendment didn't prevent the federal government from banning weapons in years past. but there is NO CASE PRECEDENCE that established what heller established. none. nada. zip. that is what makes heller LANDMARK.

3. mcdonald incorporated the second amendment to apply to the states. again, LANDMARK b/c no supreme court has ever held this in a ruling.

that means prior to mcdonald (which is all of US history), the second amendment did not protect any gun rights from the states to do what they wanted. this is a FACT. FACT FACT FACT.

4. Nunn is a state court case. that's great if you love it, and that they cited it in Heller as persuasive reasoning. but the fact they did this in heller does NOT mean the rulings in heller and mcdonald have always been there. that's not how fucking supreme court rulings work.

5. miller did NOT establish anything you are saying. the fact you are saying it does is just pure fucking lunacy. if it did, THAT would be the landmark case.

this has nothing to do w/ me trying to prove a point against gun rights. which is what you assholes don't get b/c you are fucking arrogant cunts. this is me trying to actually show what the ACTUAL history and rulings of the second amendment are. the fact you don't like them does not give you carte blanche cuntery to fucking rewrite history. this isn't a fucking texas state textbook, you don't get to declare the earth 6000 years old and jesus swam with raptors.

That's quite a bit of vitriol. These facts you present have been noted and the conversation has been built upon with other facts. Once your position takes the additional facts into consideration you might just realize the tediousness of your redundancy. Thankfully you promised this would be the last time so that's good.


Then he should go back to school bc he needs to learn how to read case law correctly. He doesn't get to make up what the law is just bc he feels like it

Alan has argued gun rights cases in the courts and won. Alan argued a landmark (does this NEED capitalized by the way?) case against the Honolulu PD and their facebook practices where he also prevailed. What have you done other than talk shit anonymously? Challenging the one guy around here with verified legal credentials makes you sound like the cunty one. At least in my opinion it does.
 
I'd love to read his landmark Hawaii cases, and see whether his ridiculous assertion of miller was actually upheld by a court.

Pm it to me if it's too sensitive to post here.

The court opinion btw, not the briefs.
 
Here is the Conn. Supreme Court which recently found dirks and batons to be protected arms by applying Miller's holding.
http://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR315/315CR113.pdf

this is one of my 2a cases. I overturned Hawaii's ban on resident alien's being able to own firearm last year.
http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.n...dis-v-City-and-County-of-Honolulu-gunscom.pdf

You know using a lot profanity and condescension in your posts does not make you look tough it just makes you look childish.
 
I will take the time to read those. however, im expecting to be disappointed based on your poor arguments thus far.
 
You aren't impressing anybody by insulting people in each of your posts. You reek of insecurity by posting the way you do.
 
I'd love to read his landmark Hawaii cases, and see whether his ridiculous assertion of miller was actually upheld by a court.

Pm it to me if it's too sensitive to post here.

The court opinion btw, not the briefs.

Alan Beck. Honolulu Police Department. Facebook. Google.

If what you want isn't here then I'm sure you have enough information to pursue it on your own.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...-Pay-31K-over-Censored-Facebook-Comments.aspx

Now go ahead an show us your credentials/legal accomplishments. Or just keep playing the fool. I'm somewhat enjoying the show.
 
well, have to say - unimpressed. the first case's discussion of miller focuses entirely on the context of what weapons are subject to regulation, and focuses entirely on heller for their decision.

the conservative justices, in their judicial activism, suggest that miller's holding "is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the econd [a]mendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’). Had the [c]ourt [in Miller] believed that the econd [a]mendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen."

you of course, being the supreme partisan hack job you are, take this as gospel as though it was there already, even though very clearly Miller, at best, "suggests" there's an individual right to keep and bear arms according to the rationale in Heller. but once again, Miller is established as not having established any bright line rules of an individual right to guns like Heller does. so you are either being really intellectually dishonest with me thinking i can't read, or you are just a really shitty lawyer. either way, strike one.

and your case applies Heller and Mcdonald. wonderful, so a case that has nothing to show for the argument we are specifically discussing. strike two.

the fact you are now chastising me for language, when it was you and your sycophants jumping down my throat when my very accurate analysis challenged their shitty world view, is also being incredibly dishonest and intellectually lazy. i expect more out of conservatives - the fact you sit there on your high horse thinking you can just bully your way over people that disagree with you is downright appalling and nasty. strike 3.

this is probably the most pathetic display of conservative deception and downright intellectual bullying i've ever come across. and for what - b/c you don't like the reality of legal history. you should be ashamed - sincerely.
 
Anyway you asked for a case so I provided the Conn. Supreme Court that applied Miller's holding in order to determine whether dirk knives and batons are protected. Of course they discuss Heller as well since it is also Supreme Court precedent and expands on Miller. Applying the language of the two relevant Supreme Court cases they found dirks and batons to be protected. That is a pretty clear application of precedent.

If you don't understand that the Court in Miller would not have remanded the case back for a trial unless it found that there is a individual right that is on you. Frank Miller was a ordinary citizen who was not in a militia. If the Court had found there was no individual right then his case would have been dead as a matter of law and there would have been no need to have a trial on whether his arm was protected via the test they gave. I am assuming that you are in law school. I'd suggest that you discuss this with one of professors if you are having a problem with this.

Also it is very difficult to read your posts when you cross through your posts. I am sorry things are starting off to a rough start here on Sherdog. I'd suggest that you read some other people's posts for awhile and see how other posters conduct themselves. It will make you a better poster and maybe even a better person.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top