Jump to content

Johnny Sack

Full Members
  • Posts

    10232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Johnny Sack

  1. There is no amount of Biden dumbfuckery you guys won’t defend.
  2. He’s an insurrectionist. Needs to be perp walked.
  3. Joe Biden is who we should listen to on gun safety. Vice President Joe Biden told Field & Stream magazine in an interview published Monday, "[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door." https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door
  4. This one should have been 9-0. But the lib justices can always be counted on to rule for their "side" in lockstep. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/liberal-supreme-court-justices-vote-in-lockstep-not-the-conservative-justices-column/2028450001/ https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891185410/in-supreme-court-term-liberals-stuck-together-while-conservatives-appeared-fract
  5. Justice Alito's concurring opinion shits on Breyer's dissent so bad. Don't think I have ever seen anything like it. Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture 2 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN ALITO, J., concurring outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances. The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns. In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 ALITO, J., concurring this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s? The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self- —————— 1 The dissent makes no effort to explain the relevance of most of the incidents and statistics cited in its introductory section (post, at 1–8) (opinion of BREYER, J.). Instead, it points to studies (summarized later in its opinion) regarding the effects of “shall issue” licensing regimes on rates of homicide and other violent crimes. I note only that the dissent’s presentation of such studies is one-sided. See RAND Corporation, Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime (Apr. 22, 2022), https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealedcarry/violent-crime-html; see also Brief for William English et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (“The overwhelming weight of statistical analysis on the effects of [right-to-carry] laws on violent crime concludes that RTC laws do not result in any statistically significant increase in violent crime rates”); Brief for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[P]opulation-level data on licensed carry is extensive, and the weight of the evidence confirms that objective, non-discriminatory licensed-carry laws have two results: (1) statistically significant reductions in some types of violent crime, or (2) no statistically significant effect on overall violent crime”); Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[O]ver the period 1991–2019 the inventory of firearms more than doubled; the number of concealed carry permits increased by at least sevenfold,” but “murder rates fell by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 per 100,000 in 2019” and “[v]iolent crimes plummeted by over half ”). 4 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN ALITO, J., concurring defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense. No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
  6. Got on Hornfans in 2000 or early 2001 while in law school. Best message board ever until the Simms meltdown in Dallas against CU. Then stayed pretty damn excellent for a few more years before turning to shit.
  7. It was literally Pearl Harbor. Sad that only a small amount of right-thinking people get that.
  8. Seems like you have dinner handled. If you need a lunch recco, try Mosquito Cafe. It’s excellent. The family also owns the bakery next door and it’s excellent too.
  9. Gee, I wonder why those E&P companies might be hesitant to ramp up capex on working over old wells or investing in new ones?
  10. I certainly don't want to suggest it works for everyone or cause anyone to stumble. The book just made a lot of sense to me and has curtailed by desire to drink booze. I now stick to topo chico at a bar or restaurant. And drink nonalcoholic delta 8 seltzers at the house. No hangovers. No calories. A nice mellow buzz.
  11. I just read that book as well. I quit drinking a couple months ago as I am focusing on health. The book played some sort of jedi mind trick as I have no desire to drink. I was in Cabo for a week and had no desire to drink. I am not an alcoholic, at least in my view, but I was drinking too frequently. Here is a summary: https://www.allencarr.com/easyway-stop-drinking/how-to-quit/#toptips Not sure it works for everyone, but my buddy who was a heavy drinker stopped drinking when he read it two years ago.
  12. It's sad how few WWII veterans are left. I remember in high school we had a big event for WWII veterans on 12/7/91. It was well attended by local vets. They did not seem that old to me and 1991 does not seem that long ago. Almost all those guys are gone. I just googled and apparently there is just one surviving member of Easy Company, 2nd Battalion 506th, and he's 97.
  13. Jake's makes a good one.
  14. The running gag they had with Henri was pretty good. He would walk in the bar, and then Norm, Cliff, Paul and other regulars would grumble about him and how they did not like him. Then Henri would say "hello, fellas". And they would all respond warmly.
  15. So many great guest stars. In addition to those already mentioned:
  16. I've always used a front end loader on the tractor to drive posts when there are too many to do by hand. But we are in that red, sandy soil. Not sure that would work in rocky terrain. Probably the post would bend.
×
×
  • Create New...