You seem to be under some delusion that if everyone reads the same document they are all going to share your opinion about it.

Yes for this Bruen document. Thanks for trying to wiggle out of this again.

Like I said, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point. Nitpicking my example isn't a rebuttal to my point. Abandon all examples then so you can be happy, explaining facts to you about the HSC decision is not the same thing as agreeing with their decision. Don't need an example, your point was a non sequitur.

Still waiting for you to prove that courts cannot use caselaw and law prior to the founding of the USA.

Wow, now you're trying to use the reverse Uno card. Another bad example as I wasn't nitpicking. 

I didn't say case law with regard to ALL US cases. I specifically said BRUEN and as it applies to HSC.  Thanks for goal post moving to try to make it appear as you're not wrong.

Wow, now you're trying to use the reverse Uno card. Another bad example as I wasn't nitpicking. 

I didn't say case law with regard to ALL US cases. I specifically said BRUEN and as it applies to HSC.  Thanks for goal post moving to try to make it appear as you're not wrong.

Ever read the stories about Tar Baby or see the Disney Song of the South? 

Arguing with EEF is like trying to fight a tar baby.  Every time you get a handle on it, he comes up with another stupid argument he expects you to waste your time replying to.

ps:  The movie and stories were deemed racist lately.

Arguing with EEF is like trying to fight a tar baby.  Every time you get a handle on it, he comes up with another stupid argument he expects you to waste your time replying to.

I spend just enough time replying so others who may not be on the same page think he's right.  I want others to know he's wrong.

I stopped going into details because like you said, he will come up with a not relevant example so he feels like he's right, move goal post, and unnecessary long threads.

Wow, now you're trying to use the reverse Uno card. Another bad example as I wasn't nitpicking. 

I didn't say case law with regard to ALL US cases. I specifically said BRUEN and as it applies to HSC.  Thanks for goal post moving to try to make it appear as you're not wrong.

And where exactly does the Bruen decision say that anything pre-constitution or common-law from England could not be made? Reading Bruen, it does mention common law became enshrined in the American constitution. It says delineates between using common law from the time of the framing vs common law from centuries before but I don't see anywhere that common law cannot be used.

Yes for this Bruen document. Thanks for trying to wiggle out of this again.

So we don't need any legal experts, you are the legal expert and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

And where exactly does the Bruen decision say that anything pre-constitution or common-law from England could not be made? Reading Bruen, it does mention common law became enshrined in the American constitution. It says delineates between using common law from the time of the framing vs common law from centuries before but I don't see anywhere that common law cannot be used.

OMG!  Are you serious?

What's the first part of the Bruen test?

If you can answer that, then explain how anything "pre-constitution" could possibly be considered in the second part.

Jeebus.

OMG!  Are you serious?

What's the first part of the Bruen test?

If you can answer that, then explain how anything "pre-constitution" could possibly be considered in the second part.

Jeebus.

Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.


From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.

someone doesn't understand what "the Nation" means...

Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.


From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.

only 4???

wrong. Please show me where I said only 4. I said at least 4. stop goal post moving! thanks for playing.

heads

wrong. Please show me where I said only 4. I said at least 4. stop goal post moving! thanks for playing.

And where exactly does the Bruen decision say that anything pre-constitution or common-law from England could not be made? Reading Bruen, it does mention common law became enshrined in the American constitution. It says delineates between using common law from the time of the framing vs common law from centuries before but I don't see anywhere that common law cannot be used.

Annnnnnd you conveniently missed that part....

So we don't need any legal experts, you are the legal expert and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

No, just you're wrong on this topic.  Thanks for trying to blanket that "all" legal experts and "everyone" is wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.


From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.

You just answered your own question, but refuse to admit being wrong. Thanks for playing.  Do you now work for the AG's office?  Sure sounds like it.

someone doesn't understand what "the Nation" means...

some people don't understand the simplest of things.....

#addingnuance

You just answered your own question, but refuse to admit being wrong. Thanks for playing.  Do you now work for the AG's office?  Sure sounds like it.

The goal post has always been the Bruen decision and how to apply it.

How can a case be covered under the text of the second amendment when it is from a foreign country and/or preceded the 2A?

The SCOTUS decision said foreign or prior period rules and regulations could be used to provide context, but the analogue itself has to be within the scope of US restrictions and only those that existed around the time the 2A was ratified.

I guess we know who the legal expert is not.

The Court held: "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's
conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that
conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is
consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may
a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's
"'unqualified command.'"

It's basically a paradoxical situation.  You can't argue for a new law's constitutionality using a historical analogue that existed prior to the constitution -- or more specifically in this context the 2A.  it's logically and rationally constrained by jurisdiction and timeframe.   The fact that England may have passed a law in 1625 might be interesting, but it can't provide any historical tradition regarding US law post-constitution and post-2A.

For someone who lives and breathes 'nuance", he sure does like to argue over what was or was not explicitly stated.

"That fire is hot and can burn you."

"OUCH!!!"

"What did I just say?"

"You didn't explicitly say 'don't touch the fire."

Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.


From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.

Tell us you don’t understand Bruen without telling us you don’t understand Bruen.

The goal post has always been the Bruen decision and how to apply it.

How can a case be covered under the text of the second amendment when it is from a foreign country and/or preceded the 2A?

The SCOTUS decision said foreign or prior period rules and regulations could be used to provide context, but the analogue itself has to be within the scope of US restrictions and only those that existed around the time the 2A was ratified.

I guess we know who the legal expert is not.

It's basically a paradoxical situation.  You can't argue for a new law's constitutionality using a historical analogue that existed prior to the constitution -- or more specifically in this context the 2A.  it's logically and rationally constrained by jurisdiction and timeframe.   The fact that England may have passed a law in 1625 might be interesting, but it can't provide any historical tradition regarding US law post-constitution and post-2A.

For someone who lives and breathes 'nuance", he sure does like to argue over what was or was not explicitly stated.

"That fire is hot and can burn you."

"OUCH!!!"

"What did I just say?"

"You didn't explicitly say 'don't touch the fire."

The anti 2A tried to use old English law about not being able to store over so many pounds of black powder.  I forgot what CA lawsuit it was for.  Not only was it moot, but the "context" was that they didn't want to see the London fires again.  And because almost all homes were made from wood, this was a fire code law and not a gun law specifically.

1st Circuit upheld RI mag ban as the judges said that the plaintiff's failed to give evidence that they're used in self defense.  So they too either don't understand Bruen or are corrupt. As the burden is on the government to show history/tradition and not on the plantiffs.

#objective

Tell us you don’t understand Bruen without telling us you don’t understand Bruen.