As I have learned from my research on early gun laws, weapons regulation in early America went even further, extending to three broad types of laws, spanning nearly 300 years of American history. First, laws restricting weapons carrying were enacted extending to guns, fighting knives, and clubs throughout the 1800s. These laws criminalized concealed weapons carrying in 50 states (including territories that later became states), open weapons carrying in at least 29 states, and even long gun carrying in at least 22 states. Second, at least 36 states laws passed laws that criminalized public weapons brandishing and display. Third, at least 47 states enacted laws providing for the licensing of some of these activities.
This blizzard of weapons regulations makes the contemporary inability to enact similar laws seem both ahistorical and contrary to the fundamental goal of protecting the public and preserving public order.
This history matters for at least two reasons: First, the new standard for judging the constitutionality of modern gun laws under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision is based on whether they are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Analogous historic gun laws, according to the court, need not be “a dead ringer for historical precursors” but must be “analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” Second, many believe this slavish devotion to history to be deeply flawed. For example, why should law-making in modern society be jacketed by the standards of pre-industrial 18th century America? Modern gun technologies are far, far more deadly than the one-shot flintlocks of the 18th century—shouldn’t that matter? And what, exactly, constitutes an acceptable historical analogue? Still, it is equally clear that there is wisdom to be found in our gun law past.
That past reveals at least two key lessons. First, in most of our history, gun laws and gun rights were perfectly compatible. Only in the last few decades have the two become locked in a zero-sum relationship, where a gain for one side is seen as a loss for the other. Second, these prolific and varied gun laws make clear that the default in American history was regulation and restriction for guns and other weapons, especially once individuals left their domiciles.
— Robert J. Spitzer in For Most of U.S. History We’ve Had Both Gun Rights and Gun Regulations
Jim Crow democrats history of racism genocide and rot gun control
bigot.
aq…your mockery places your lips smack dab on Gun Control butt…take a bow pencildick.
The fact is bruen’s “historical analogies” suddenly matter to history illiterate do-it-for-me courtroom drama queens. Another fact is Gun Control has its very own historical analogies that History Confirms are Rooted in Racism, Genocide, Discrimination, etc.
Unfortunately Defining Gun Control according to its History of Rot was and is nowhere to be found in the wheelhouse of gutless, mealy mouth twerps like aq. Twerps like aq who sit on their ignorant behinds while Gun Control zealots like the article’s author are left free to Spin History to the Advantage of Gun Control.
Good thing nothing you say matters.
aq, void…you two desperate butt buddies have a choice, give up trying to climb out of the crapper you put yourselves in or continue being nothing more than History illiterate snot nosed Gun Control lint lickers.
LOL again with your empty gay/emasculating stuff, penis envy much? With that said you do more for gun control with discouraging court battles or funding gun rights advocacy groups than many grabber politicians. So take a bow do nothing and let it happen Deb you support gun control by not fighting back. Or you are yet another Troll either way you lack even the entertainment value of Dacian so you are truly irrelevant past exposing your lack of worth.
I just don’t understand how knowing the history of gun control is gonna help anybody. You think the left really cares????
Also you seem to have some kind of interest in my nether regions, always talking pencildick and balls
If it is a she it would lack both by default as well as ability to see a bigger picture let alone second order thinking by either choice or lack of ability. To be honest I am beginning to think it is a troll like Dacian and Miner with how comically one dimensional the commenting style is and how it never seems to have anything productive to add besides some basic bitch ar builds. Shame and scold it enough it will back off for a day post one or two coherent and somewhat relevant posts then back to the bot script.
Dick lives above two nuts and a real asshole
How the fuck do you plan on any unconstitutional gun laws being overturned without going to court exactly?
You gonna talk the anti’s to death? You should be thanking AQ he gave you the perfect opportunity to do what you normally do and cut right to the front of the line to spew your history rot.
muckmouth…Is the author of this entire History based article worried one bit about going to court or is he actually doing something to sway public opinion?
I’m sure there were no Gun Control zealots barking at him and throwing around lame excuses like you and your pathetic do-it-for-me courtroom drama ilk.
I am still waiting on blowbags on this forum who by all accounts do not have the intestinal fortitude to ask 10 random people to Define Gun Control and post the answers…You being a contributing member of do it for me orgs. maybe you could be the first to stand alone and hit the streets?
Deb what in retardation are you attempting to communicate in that rant? Other than that you are still trying to make others do stuff for you? Lazy attention seeking behavior there.
Debbie, two questions:
1) What were the results of your survey of 10 people when you asked them to define gun control?
2) Can you cite the results of any lawsuit in which gun control was defined by its history of rot?
“I am still waiting on blowbags on this forum who by all accounts do not have the intestinal fortitude to ask 10 random people to Define Gun Control and post the answers”
And that gets us where exactly?
“You being a contributing member of do it for me orgs. maybe you could be the first to stand alone and hit the streets?”
I’m not a lawyer so this is pretty much the best that I can do besides emailing my Rep Ken Buck and the two fucking loser senators that I have, which I do often.
If you want to stand on the street corner with those placards that they wore in the 20’s and 30’s espousing their beliefs, go right ahead and let me know how it advanced our cause.
In order to further our cause we need to pay for it, sad but true.
Now seriously Debbie what is your solution and how do we achieve it?
Hey Debbie,
I just emailed my NRAILA rep for Colorado this message.
“Hello Clay,
Is the NRAILA helping any other orgs in their fight for our gun rights?
Governor Polis just signed in to law making unserialized lowers illegal.
Are you planning to file a lawsuit against this outrageous unconstitutional overreach?
Respectfully,
********
I’ll let you know his answer.
What have you done today?
Why not now?? Because these days our politicians seem to believe they’re installed to mandate their own beliefs and phuk the bill of rights!
my cousin may truly get cash in their additional time on their pc. their dearest companion had been doing this 4 some place around a year and at this point cleared the commitment. in their littler than normal house and acquired an uncommon vehicle.
that’s our strength here====)>>
Why not now? Two reasons.
1. Because history has shown that the Founders were correct in making the Second Amendment an absolute prohibition against government infringement. Given even the slightest leeway the WILL erode the right to the greatest extent they can possibly get away with.
2. Because you cannot make a LAW that supersedes the Constitution, even an amendment to the Constitution that you disagree with. That’s not how it works. If you do not like or agree with a portion of the Constitution you MUST go through the Article V process of amending the Constitution to your liking. and live with the results if you cannot get 38 State legislatures to agree with you.
Yep to #1 and Yep to #2
“…why should law-making in modern society be jacketed by the standards of pre-industrial 18th century America?”
Simple.
Because whether we’re speaking 21st Century America, Boston in 1779, or even 200 BC Jerusalem, being hamstrung by the official law from being able to defend one’s own life, or that of a family/friend’s/loved one’s, or even some poor defenseless stranger’s, or to prevent physical injury or senseless loss or damage to personal property with the easiest, best and most practical means available is stupid. Even most higher-order animals defend themselves, their lair and offspring when threatened. It IS the natural order of Creation, or evolution, or whatever one believes in as to however came to be.
Try to relieve the same government authority who created these insane laws of the same and see what happens…
Laws be damned. In the end, the best way to reduce violence, crime and mayhem is to make the commission of such violent acts AT LEAST as dangerous for the perpetrator as it is for their intended victim. For those of us who cannot, or do not want to bear the cost of 24/7 armed security, a $200, loaded firearm in the hand is the best, often only viable option. Perhaps we should make this point by legislating that no public official, from school board member or dog catcher through POTUS be allowed to use or employ any personal security for their own safety.
“In the end, the best way to reduce violence, crime and mayhem is to make the commission of such violent acts AT LEAST as dangerous for the perpetrator as it is for their intended victim.”
Freaking truth! Craig!
Why people want to be outgunned by their governments I will never understand. Literally the most soy mentality ever.
my cousin may truly get cash in their additional time on their pc. their dearest companion had been doing this 4 some place around a year and at this point cleared the commitment. in their littler than normal house and acquired an uncommon vehicle.
that’s our strength here====)>> https://easyway450.blogspot.com/
They want the government to out gun us. They expect to be in charge of the men with guns.
That’s how authoritarians think.
Lol. The left wants to take us back to the 1800’s.
I wonder, what other Democrat supported systems were in place back then.
Well played, Sir.
Indeed. Chattel slavery and men were free to beat the crap out of their wives if they smarted off to him. No 19th amendment…
Simple answer. The regulation used to be light-to-nonexistent. It’s been increasingly tightened over the past century or so, until finally the snap-back has started.
“First, laws restricting weapons carrying were enacted extending to guns, fighting knives, and clubs throughout the 1800s. These laws criminalized concealed weapons carrying in 50 states (including territories that later became states), open weapons carrying in at least 29 states, and even long gun carrying in at least 22 states. Second, at least 36 states laws passed laws that criminalized public weapons brandishing and display“
Isn’t that what they call ‘history and tradition’?
“Isn’t that what they call ‘history and tradition’?”
That and “in common use” will be sure to bite us in the ass. One of the worst fucking lines in Tombstone “We’re not saying you can’t carry a gun. You just can’t carry one in town.” Not an exact quote.
How about this…The 2nd Amendment meabs what it says either concealed or in plain sight period. Anywhere any time.
“means” dah mitt!
Spitzer is correct that unrestricted immigration lead to all manner of UNCONSITUTIONAL laws being enacted at the end of the 1800s and 1900s.
Our “history” did not begin in 1865.
Why is minor such a dumbass? Paid position?
No, its whats called ‘his interpretation and lacking context for application’. For example, its not true that “and even long gun carrying in at least 22 states” in his broad context-lacking characterization and (one of) the reason that’s not true is because no state ever has banned ‘long gun’ carrying in a general sense generally from being carried for hunting or on a firing range. In the specific for a particular ‘long gun’ it might be true in the context of some instances, for example, hunting.
However, simply because these things may have existed does not mean they are automatically analogous constitutional historic gun laws. Many such gun laws in those time periods were unconstitutional, not because of Bruen today, but because they were enacted without regard for the constitution.
And of course this appeals to you because like this author, you too don’t understand what context means.
and to add…. most if not all of what Spitzer is pointing to as history and tradition was unconstitutional from its beginning or at least after the 14th amendment was passed for some of them. Most of them were enacted with the intent of being used against other races and ‘peoples’ (e.g. blacks, Indians, those who immigrated e.g. like the Sullivan law in New York was enacted so the immigrating Irish could be arrested if they had a gun). All of it, what Spitzer outlines, was racist from their very beginning.
When the Bruen decision outlined text, history, and tradition, for analogous it was meaning things that are/were constitutional and not just words written a long time ago. These arguments have been tried before, they have failed under Bruen, they failed under Heller and McDonald, they failed under Cantano, they failed under so many other cases because these claimed to be ‘analogous things’ were never really constitutional and although in some cases they may have been permitted under the old two-step ‘give the government what they want’ test in some cases they were never actually constitutional and that ‘repeatedly basing’ decision on that which was not really constitutional led us to Bruen to re-establish that laws need to be based upon the constitution which is exactly what the founders envisioned and intended.
So no, Spitzer is wrong in trying to assert these are suitable ‘analogous things’ to meet the ‘history, text, tradition’ test of Bruen because they never were really constitutional.
While everything you said is true .40 cal,
That doesn’t mean that liberal courts won’t try to spin “History and Tradition” to their advantage. Leaving it entirely up to the Supreme Court which may not always have a conservative majority.
C’mon Minerva, you can do better than that… It’s what they call “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” history and tradition… What part of “Shall NOT be infringed” do YOU not understand… Those “regulations” were imposed upon a citizenry mostly ignorant of their Constitutional rights, we’re doing much better with that now… But thanks for asking…
No.
First off, the examples that spritzer provided are the same arguments antis have used to justify a ban on particular arms, another weak argument the antis bring up are early American black powder storage laws. A restriction on the carrying of certain arms or pointing to storage type laws are NOT analogous to a possession ban at the time of founding, circa 1791.
As to the the states that passed laws that criminalized public display of arms, would also run into analogous trouble do the very nature of “keep and bear” in the 2nd Amendment.
All in all negative rights are not subject to the ever encroaching misguided 2 step interest balancing and it’s well past time to start declaring such schemes as unconstitutional and put interest balancing where it belongs, the garbage can.
This excerpt is very misleading. Some localities did indeed restrict various weapons for various people (often based on bigotry around race, religion, etc. – leave it to the left to go hard in the paint on racist laws as soon as they seem convenient). However, there was no broader national framework for gun regulation as this author implies, nor any large-scale push for gun or arms control from the states through most of the country’s history.
Claiming that, “These laws criminalized concealed weapons carrying in 50 states,” is highly misleading at best. In each state, some areas (usually quite small – villages, towns, cities) did occasionally ban the carry of concealed weapons for some people (again, often because they had the wrong skin color). But there was no broad push for gun control across 50 states, and wording the argument this way is effectively a lie. Moreover, there actually weren’t 50 states in the time periods relevant to Bruen, nor were there very many territories obviously heading to statehood in this timeframe. Claiming “50 states or territories” exposes the author as either ignorant or a fraud.
What legitimate historical precedents there are (and there aren’t many) have been looked at in recent litigation and found wanting as a basis for broad-based 2A infringement. But this is exactly the kind of disingenuous “evidence” that leftists are now inventing as they attempt to bully an otherwise free citizenry. Relying on past racism to enact gun control is especially appalling, but less surprising coming from the left than it should be.
Miner, you should be ashamed of quoting this nonsense. Your trolling on this site is often amusing, and I actually don’t believe you’re a stupid person. But when you parrot mischaracterizations and obvious mistruths, you make me wonder.
when you parrot mischaracterizations and obvious mistruths,
That’s basically ALL Minerva does… His selective editing is rivaled only by the OTHER resident Troll…
He thought the FBI Crossfire Hurricane and subsequent Mueller investigation were legitimate. Obama and the FBI knew from the very beginning it was a scam seeded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. That’s now a indisputable fact. Miner obediently follows the propaganda. When they say jump, he jumps. Does that make him stupid? You be the judge.
“it was a scam“
Of course the Republicans claim it was a “scam”, because they have worked hard to conceal Russian interference in our elections. But fortunately a thorough investigation has revealed the connections:
“The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.
Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016
Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]
Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]
Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]
The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”
In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]
Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.“
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
And when you view trumps intentional deception and obstruction in this instance, it allows one to see his theft, concealment and obstruction activities regarding the national security documents found in his desk drawer at Mar-a-Lago in a whole new light.
“And when you view trumps intentional deception and obstruction”
Except that Trump did NOT obstruct anything, you moron. You’re still jumping when the propagandist media tells you to jump. You have zero critical thinking skills. You’re a mindless regime drone.
Indictments and “Russian interference” mean nothing without nuance. The Mueller team indicted Russians for “interfering” as a media stunt. They didn’t think anyone would show up to defend it. When those Russians sent their lawyer to defend it, the Mueller team dropped the charges! Yet here you are still bragging about those indictments, you moron! The Mueller team tried to pivot to obstruction because THEY SAID THEMSELVES THERE WAS NO COLLUSION, YOU MORON. The other charges were either completely unrelated to “Russian Collusion” and the election, or they were process charges created solely by the existence of the illegitimate investigation! I don’t expect you to understand what that means. I’ve come to the conclusion that you aren’t just a liar or evil. You’re literally a moron in the historic, technical sense of the term.
I’ve spelled this out for you real slow like before, but you’re still failing to comprehend it. You’re a desperate clinger, clinging to the illegitimate investigation perpetrated by Clinton, Obama, and the corrupt DOJ/FBI. I think it’s beyond safe to call you stupid at this point.
Just a couple of things…. Mueller Investigation was NOT about Russian interference, no one will deny that the Russians have tried to interfere in our elections since the 50s and more recently the Chinese, Israelis, Brits, France, Mexico (much like US interferes around the world) and every other country that has a financial interest in the US, what it WAS about is whether or not the Trump campaign or Trump and his proposed staff ever COLLUDED with Russia as purported by the Clinton/DNC financed Steele Dossier and was NOT supported by ANY evidence which Comey and HIS FBI were well aware of BEFORE they started your aptly(?) named “Crossfire Hurricane” (should have been Reach around Circle jerk) for which none of them (save one slap on the wrist) will ever be prosecuted for THEIR blatant attempt to interfere with a presidential election…
regarding the national security documents found in his desk drawer at Mar-a-Lago in a whole new light?
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978:
Specifically, the PRA:
Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
Guess he should have piled them up in his garage next to his Corvette or in an office financed by the CCP and run by a Chinese operative…
That’s it, couldn’t get through all that other garbage, I have no patience for moronic repetitive ranting…
About ACS
Mission: The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is a 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan legal organization. Through a diverse nationwide network of progressive lawyers, law students, judges, scholars, advocates, and many others, our mission is to support and advocate for laws and legal systems that strengthen our democratic legitimacy, uphold the rule of law, and redress the founding failures of our Constitution and enduring inequities in our laws in pursuit of realized equality.
I searched the site for “Durham report” but there were no results.
I did find this interesting brief:
In the past year, more than 400 local governments—mostly counties—have adopted resolutions declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” These counties are co-opting immigration advocates’ use of sanctuary language to express support for gun rights, attack gun control legislation, and, in some cases, declare that no governmental resources or personnel will be used to enforce laws that “unconstitutionally” or “unnecessarily” infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Rick Su, professor of law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, analyzes these Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions and concludes that they “lack the power to unilaterally nullify state gun laws in their jurisdiction” and in crucial respects are distinct from the immigration sanctuaries from which they borrow their name.
ya know what MIner49… you can save yourself some time in your posts simply by writing…’TURMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!’ and we will get it that your mental illness obsession with Trump is all you live for.
Seriously, you write this stuff like you have a mental illness obsession that you have to write about to relieve the obsession drive pressure.
You post about it like a self-proclaimed victim while at the same time cheering on millions of law abiding gun owners being victimized by the very president (Biden) you obviously have some sort of weird deep seated worship sexual based fantasy about.
Get some help from a good mental health professional.
“Guess he should have piled them up in his garage next to his Corvette or in an office financed by the CCP and run by a Chinese operative…”
The President has the authority to declassify anything at his sole discretion. The VP does NOT have that authority. In other words, Biden broke the law, but Trump didn’t. It’s yet another get Trump operation by the Democrats/deep state (AKA the liberal regime). Watch for them to pivot to obstruction because they know they have nothing else.
Edit: Your comment is awaiting moderation. Absurd
Man,
“The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is a 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan legal organization. Through a diverse nationwide network of progressive lawyers, law students, judges, scholars, advocates, and many others, our mission is to support and advocate for laws and legal systems that strengthen our democratic legitimacy, uphold the rule of law, and redress the founding failures of our Constitution and enduring inequities in our laws in pursuit of realized equality.”
If only they had a scarlet letter that I could aim for.
The VP does NOT have that authority. In other words, Biden broke the law,
Most of the stuff they found in Bribems garage was from his time as a Senator, BUT he “cooperated”… They’re trying to go after obstruction charges on Trump which means they’ll have to charge him and TRY him in FL (the location of the alleged crime)… Supposedly there is a Grand Jury in session now in FL to hear this case… I like his chances…
What a bunch of sad sacks and guardhouse lawyers, hilarious.
“The President has the authority to declassify anything at his sole discretion“
Yeah well, classification status isn’t a part of the federal statute Trump violated, red herring.
Instead of all of this ranting and raving, why don’t y’all just stand back and standby, as the jurisprudence system grinds along. I’m sure it will be very enlightening and many of you may find it informative regarding due process and the criminal prosecution of America’s domestic enemies.
“What a bunch of sad sacks and guardhouse lawyers, hilarious.”
You mean like yourself, Liar69er? You started the off-topic ranting and raving — except it’s not funny.
“Instead of all of this ranting and raving, why don’t y’all just stand back and standby, as the jurisprudence system grinds along.”
You mean like yourself, Liar69er? You don’t seem to be standing back and standing by, jerkoff.
Anyone with a lick of sense knows what’s going on here — it’s called “lawfare” and your reveling in it, is sick.
Instead of all of this ranting and raving, why don’t y’all just stand back and standby,
Why don’t YOU take your own advice Minerva, talk about ranting and raving… Your “illness” is obvious, but there is a cure…
Here’s the preliminary details:
“Unauthorized retention of national security documents
It is a crime to retain national security documents without authorization and to fail to deliver them to a government official entitled to take custody of them.
To win a conviction, prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after leaving the White House and failed to comply when the government asked him to return them and then subpoenaed him.
Each such charged document would be a separate offense, so it is possible that prosecutors have brought as many as five counts of this offense by citing five different records. A conviction would be theoretically subject to 10 years in prison for each count, although defendants in other Espionage Act cases have received significantly less than the maximum.
To obtain a conviction, prosecutors would also have to prove to the jury that the documents related to the national defense, that they were closely held and that their disclosure could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary.
Although Mr. Trump has claimed — without evidence — that he declassified all the files he took to Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors would not technically need to prove that they were still classified because the Espionage Act predates the classification system and does not refer to it as an element.
Conspiracy Charges
It is a crime to agree with another person to break a law. Prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump and some other person had a meeting of the minds about committing a specific crime and that one of them took some step toward that goal. The penalty can be up to five years.
Obstruction
It is a crime to conceal records to obstruct an official effort. Prosecutors would need to show several things, including that Mr. Trump knew he still had files that were subject to the efforts by the National Archives and Records Administration to take custody of presidential records. They would also need to be able to demonstrate that he willfully defied the Justice Department’s subpoena for files marked as classified, and that he intentionally caused his subordinates to fail to turn them all over while leading officials to believe they had complied. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.
False statement
It is a crime to make a false statement to a law enforcement officer about a fact material to the officer’s investigation. Such crimes carry a penalty of up to five years per offense.
Mr. Trump is not known to have directly made substantive statements to the government, but prosecutors could charge him if they can show that he conspired with or induced another person to lie to the Justice Department about there being no further documents responsive to the subpoena.
Or, if prosecutors can show that he induced his lawyers to unwittingly lie to the Justice Department, they could charge Mr. Trump directly for causing the false statement even if he himself did not commit the offense himself. The law says that “whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”
It is not known what the other charges are, but here are some possibilities:
Mishandling official documents
Whether or not the documents relate to national security, it is a crime to conceal or destroy official documents. Among other disclosures, former aides to Mr. Trump have recounted how he sometimes ripped up official documents. The National Archives has also said that some of the White House paper records the Trump administration transferred to it had been torn up, including some that had been taped back together. The penalty is up to three years per offense, in addition to a ban on holding federal office, although the latter is most likely unconstitutional, legal experts say.
Contempt of court
It is a crime to willfully disobey a court order, like the grand jury subpoena Mr. Trump received in May 2022 that required him to turn over all documents marked as classified that remained in his possession. It carries a penalty of a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison. To bring this charge, prosecutors would need evidence showing he knew that he was still holding onto other files with classification markings during and after his representatives purported to comply with the subpoena.“
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/08/us/trump-indictment-documents
Here’s the preliminary details:
You can’t be serious, this a prime example of the old “indict a ham sandwich” adage… Can’t wait to see this crap tossed and the Prosecutor charged with attempted bribery and prosecutorial misconduct… Presidential Records Act will prevail and it contains NO criminal aspect… Trump declassified all those documents on Jan 19th 2021 (documented, in writing) which was fully under HIS authority to do… Bribem was ILLEGALLY in possession o classified materials as far back as 1974, Clinton deleted 1800 classified documents from her personal server, Obama had classified documents stored above an unguarded parking garage next to a McDonalds, Billy Bob had 18 months of classified recordings in a sock drawer and YOU don’t see a problem with the Bribem DOJ indicting TRUMP, the front runner in the Republican Primary who is also polling ahead of Bribem? You are definitely NOT a true American and I’m certain that you are going to be extremely unhappy with the outcome of THIS action just like everything else they have thrown at Trump for the past 6 1/2 years… This will most likely be dismissed and if not we have truly descended into 3rd World Territory…
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-ma
I’m old enough to remember when they impeached Trump for merely looking into something his political rival bragged about committing on camera.
Joe Biden: Fire the prosecutor investigating my son’s company or you don’t get the money.
Using that precedent set by Dems, shouldn’t they be impeaching Biden for “abuse of power” for going after his political rival?
“Here’s the preliminary details:”
Liar69er, didn’t you say
“What a bunch of sad sacks and guardhouse lawyers, hilarious.
“Instead of all of this ranting and raving, why don’t y’all just stand back and standby, as the jurisprudence system grinds along.”
So why don’t you just stand back and stand by, instead of ranting and raving? It’s called “taking your own advice,” unless you don’t believe in what you said — which is most likely considering that you’re a habitual and pathological liar, even to yourself.
“Trump declassified all those documents on Jan 19th 2021 (documented, in writing)“
Fake News.
“404 – PAGE NOT FOUND
That page cannot be found, or is located on an archived web page.“
“Clinton deleted 1800 classified documents“
Hilarious.
“Fake News.
404 – PAGE NOT FOUND
That page cannot be found, or is located on an archived web page.“
Liar69er, ever consider going to the initial source? I found it within seconds; apparently Maxx’s link was truncated by the comment system.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/
you guys are so full of shit, and you just can’t help but lie about these issues.
Donald Trump himself admitted the documents were not declassified. Classification status is immaterial, the law does not require the documents to be classified.
“Former President Donald Trump acknowledged on tape in a 2021 meeting that he had retained “secret” military information that he had not declassified, according to a transcript of the audio recording obtained by CNN.
“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.
CNN obtained the transcript of a portion of the meeting where Trump is discussing a classified Pentagon document about attacking Iran. In the audio recording, which CNN previously reported was obtained by prosecutors, Trump says that he did not declassify the document he’s referencing, according to the transcript.“
Of course, all you have is insults to conceal the fact you’re lying about the situation.
“Liar69er, ever consider going to the initial source?“
Did you ever consider actually looking at the link you posted? Here, let me help you:
“Memorandum on Declassification of Certain Materials Related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
LAW & JUSTICE
Issued on: January 19, 2021“
Oh look, this doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with the national security documents that Trump stole, illegally retained, defied a federal subpoena, coerced his attorneys to lie about and hid in his desk drawer.
And classification status is immaterial, the federal statutes Trump violated do not even address classification status.
If it wasn’t for disinformation, you conservatives would have no information at all.
“you guys are so full of shit, and you just can’t help but lie about these issues.”
Liar69er, that’s projection — YOU are the known liar on this forum.
“Of course, all you have is insults to conceal the fact you’re lying about the situation.”
Heh. Proves my point.
“Did you ever consider actually looking at the link you posted?”
You said it was “fake news,” that the link didn’t point to an actual site. I proved you wrong, Liar. Again.
“If it wasn’t for disinformation, you conservatives would have no information at all.”
Liar69er, you’re the pathological liar here. It’s obvious; it’s been repeatedly proven. You have zero credibility — why should we believe anything that you post when you’re caught lying every single time?
What happened to “Instead of all of this ranting and raving, why don’t y’all just stand back and standby, as the jurisprudence system grinds along?” You want us to shut up so that you can rant on about your lies.
“What a bunch of sad sacks and guardhouse lawyers, hilarious.”
Except it’s not funny when you lie. So now who’s the sad sack guardhouse lawyer?
“Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.“
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html
Here’s one for YOU Minerva: Enjoy
DOJ Offered Lawyer for Trump Valet Help With Judgeship, Wanted Cooperation
By Jeffrey Rodack | Friday, 09 June 2023 09:20 AM EDT
Stanley Woodward, a lawyer for former President Donald Trump’s valet, reportedly claims in court papers that a top federal prosecutor brought up his application for a judgeship while trying to gain the valet’s cooperation in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
In a report in The Guardian newspaper, Woodward was identified as the lawyer. He represents Walt Nauta — the valet who has been under scrutiny over his accounts of whether he moved boxes of documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in South Florida, according to NBC News.
The Guardian said Woodward’s claim was made in a letter filed under seal with the chief federal judge in Washington.
“You said it was “fake news,” that the link didn’t point to an actual site. I proved you wrong, Liar. Again.“
Nope, the claim regarding this place was that Trump declassified the documents at Mar-a-Lago before he left office, and gave that link is proof of this claim.
I pointed out that not only was the link invalid, the fact is that declassification action had nothing whatsoever to do with the documents that Trump had stolen and was illegally retaining at Mar-a-Lago. That declassification order only pertained to the crossfire hurricane investigations.
If it wasn’t for disinformation, y’all would have nothing at all, how embarrassing for you.
Now go ahead, spout and sputter, call me a liar but offer no valid evidence to support your delusional claims.
“…call me a liar…”
OK. You’re a liar, Liar69er.
Miner views history through the distortion filter of a particular p0litical ideology.
I wonder if he’s embraced the new fad of Afrocentrism?
And a bottle of Woodford Reserve if I remember correctly…
He embraces whatever they tell him to embrace. He’s a mindless drone for the regime.
“I wonder if he’s embraced the new fad of Afrocentrism?“
Yep. But it’s fact, not fad.
“Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years”
https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution#:~:text=Humans%20first%20evolved%20in%20Africa,different%20species%20of%20early%20humans.
And the hits just keep coming!
“Donald Trump’s aide Walt Nauta has been indicted for a criminal conspiracy relating to Donald Trump’s theft of government records and obstruction of justice.“
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yXAql13di1M
When the fraudulent elector indictments start dropping, I think will start seeing the seditious conspiracy charges that we all will find so entertaining.
And of course, the Georgia RICO indictments will be the icing on the cake.
CNN?? That stalwart bastion of “TRUTH, HONESTY, and AMERICAN VALUES? Kneegrow PLEEEZE!!… How many times have YOU been disappointed over the last 6 1/2 years? Sit back and relax, take a pill, have a drink, whatever blows your skirt up Minerva… Whatever happens WILL happen, do you actually believe they will find 12 jurors in Miami (DeSantis won there by 11 points) to UNANIMOUSLY vote to convict TRUMP on ANYTHING? Indictment means squat, IF it goes to trial there is ZERO chance of conviction… Problem is THEY know that and they are counting on it, let’s see… Start the trial in Oct/Nov, run it into 24 call a mistrial in time for “ShitBragg” to start his clown show, end that by the end of Feb then retry in Miami in Mar/Apr to another mistrial then try one more time in Aug/Sept while giving “what’s-her-name” in Atlanta HER shot at TRUMP… It’s ALL designed to keep Trump distracted (won’t work) and limit his free time to campaign… Any “information” they used to get THIS indictment has been available for the last two years and five months but this CLOWN suddenly “discovered” IT? It’s a RUSE, designed to keep attention off of the “Bribem Crime Family” and their millions in payoffs from “FOREIGN” entities (while Braindead was VP) AND an attempt to interfere in an election on a scale the RUSSIANS could only dream about… Don’t get your hopes up too high Minerva, the fall can be devastating… Me? I give zero fucks either way, I didn’t want Trump to run again anyway, but if he beats this and goes on take out “Bribem” that’s cool, if not DeSantis has got it covered… Either way is a WIN to me… Chill out dude…
“do you actually believe they will find 12 jurors in Miami (DeSantis won there by 11 points) to UNANIMOUSLY vote to convict TRUMP on ANYTHING?”
Well at least you’re willing to admit that Trump supporters are political hacks who would ignore their constitutional jury duty and instead vote to support their political party, that’s a rare bit of honesty from a conservative.
“Bribem”
That’s especially comedic, years of investigations costing taxpayers millions of dollars, yet no indictments, no charges, and the Republicans admit they have no evidence:
“Republicans offer no evidence of crimes at press conference on alleged ‘Biden family corruption’
“House Republicans have alleged Joe Biden financially gained from his time in public service but failed to provide documentation
Andrew Feinberg
Eric Garcia
Thursday 11 May 2023 00:03”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-comer-joe-biden-hunter-biden-press-conference-b2336459.html
Well at least you’re willing to admit that Trump supporters are political hacks…
No I’m telling YOU that they will find at least ONE “principled” American who can see through this Kommie attempt to interfere with the FAIR election process that was once a cornerstone of this Republic… As for Bribem? Sit back, relax and enjoy the show (well, at least I will)… As for the 404 error page? Guess you couldn’t see the big blue box that says SEARCH… One click would have taken you right to the page…
That’s especially comedic, years of investigations costing taxpayers millions of dollars, yet no indictments, no charges, and the Republicans admit they have no evidence:
Funny that sounds EXACTLY like the Mueller investigation “Pot meet Kettle”…
Maxine, you just don’t wanna admit that many Trump supporters are liars and frauds.
They are all too willing to support trump even in the face of public evidence of his corruption.
And it is because many of them are frauds and liars themselves:
“Denis Molla, a Minnesota man, has admitted to staging an event where he claimed Antifa set fire to his camper because he displayed a Trump campaign flag, confessing to insurance fraud and wire fraud charges after defrauding an insurance agency and GoFundMe donors of over $300,000, according to the Justice Department.“
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc-DZ6H0WNk
, you just don’t wanna admit that many Trump supporters are liars and frauds.
I NEVER said that there were no liars and frauds among Trump supporters (Newsflash, I don’t trust anyone to tell the truth) so THAT is actually a lie but coming from a notable liar and fraud such as yourself THAT is a compliment to the average type of liar and fraud…
Do you really want to go there? We could discuss how many times Black left wing students created what appeared to be “racist” images on college campuses supposedly done by White Supremacists or best of all how many times has “Bribem” denied ANY knowledge of “Bribem Jrs” business dealings, or said “I’m not going to take your ARs” and the BEST one yet came Friday when he responded to a reporters question about the five million dollar “bribe” and he said QUOTE: “I’m an honest man.” and he didn’t follow up with “I’m not joking”… Pot meet Kettle… Nobody cares what some dumb fuck in Minnesota did, how about the REAL attacks on Conservatives by Antifa… Like the parents at a school in Gardena California, or the several religious groups that have been assaulted by them… OR the elderly that were beaten on the streets of Seattle by Antifa… YOU are beating a dead horse… “But that Republi—Blah-blah-blah-blah said blah-blah-blah TRUMP blah-blah-blah-blah”… Have a better day Minerva…
Maxi-pad, I’m sure you do want folks to just stop thinking about Donald Trump. I can understand why the conservatives would want to distance themselves and do everything they could to bully folks into ignoring his crimes.
But I can tell you, patriotic Americans are going to hold the seditionists’ feet to the fire, and we will do everything in our power to bring them before the bar of justice.
And here’s another one that is being called to account for his actions against America:
“D.C. Bar authorities charged Clark in July 2022 with engaging in “dishonest” conduct and seeking to “seriously interfere with the administration of justice” when he embarked on a weekslong effort to help Trump sow doubt about the results of the 2020 election.
In the weeks before Trump left office, Clark — then the acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division — spearheaded the drafting of a letter urging state governments in states won by Joe Biden to consider convening their legislatures and revisiting the results of the election. He leaned on Justice Department leaders to send the letter but was repeatedly rebuffed.
But Clark continued pressing to issue the letter and, with the help of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), caught the attention of Trump, who was prepared to make Clark the acting attorney general in early January 2021 — until a mass resignation threat by senior Justice Department officials caused him to reverse his decision. Clark’s involvement in the episode has drawn intense scrutiny from federal prosecutors, who raided his home a year ago, and the Jan. 6 select committee, which highlighted Clark’s role in Trump’s bid to subvert the election during its public hearings.“
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/08/federal-judge-trump-ally-jeffrey-clark-00101183
“The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine… “
MrsMiniver… The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine… “
As the “Bribems” will soon find out… Do you never tire of plying half-truths, innuendo, and hyperbole? You spent ALL that time and energy to announce that a “hearing” will resume? You can’t possibly actually consider yourself and others like you to be AMERICAN patriots, Russian maybe or North Korean? Maybe even China, but you are FAR from being an American patriot if you think those fucking Kommies in the White House got there legitimately or are acting in the best interest of this country…
I’m sure you do want folks to just stop thinking about Donald Trump…
There you go again, making assumptions and inserting words that I never said… Are there no bounds to your deceit and lies, I understand that integrity is a foreign word to you, but you should look it up, maybe give it a try…
“Isn’t that what they call ‘history and tradition’?”
Asked, and answered. See the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions.
Cherry picked rot. The laws were municipal not state or territorial and could only be enforced strictly within that municipality. Once you were out city limits they were null and void.
Another viewpoint:
“According to this view, the right protected by the Second Amendment is neither a private right of individuals nor a collective right of the states.23 Perhaps the best way to describe these alternative models would be to characterize them as part of a new paradigm which views the Second Amendment as a civic right.24 The right to bear arms is one exercised by citizens, not individuals (an important distinction in the Founding Era), who act together in a collective manner, for a distinctly public purpose: participation in a well regulated militia.25 While issues of federalism and states rights continue to be relevant to understanding the context of the Second Amendment debate, the text fits a civic rights model better than either the individual or collective rights paradigms.“
“As minister John Zubly noted in a sermon preached before the Provincial Congress of Georgia on the eve of the American Revolution, the “well regulated liberty of individuals is the natural offspring of laws, which prudentially regulated the rights of whole
communities.”36 Zubly went on to amplify this notion by observing that “all liberty which is not regulated by law is a delusive phantom.”37 Outside of a well regulated society governed by the rule of law, liberty was nothing more than licentiousness and anarchy.38 This particular conception of liberty was central to the way the founding generation understood the idea of the right to bear arms.39 Although the Constitution represented a significant break with many aspects of revolutionary theory, Zubly’s conception of well regulated liberty endured.40”
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr
“Another viewpoint”
An irrelevant one, at that.
The title of the treatise quoted by Liar69er is “A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control.” (2004, Cornell & DeDino)
As in the quote that Liar used, the authors contend that the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment only means “control by government while participating in a militia” —
Gun rights legal scholars have made a number of remarkable,
almost phantasmagorical claims about the meaning of the term “well regulated.” Perhaps the most far-fetched of these is the suggestion that well regulated did not mean government-controlled, but only properly disciplined and drilled. 9 In the view of Don Kates and Randy Barnett, it makes no sense to read the Second Amendment “as authorizing regulation of arms.”‘1 0 The authors of this curious interpretation of the Second Amendment have constructed a fantasy world where words mean their opposite, and regulation is really antiregulation. This version of early American history more closely resembles the Bizarro world described in Superman comic books and rendered in hilarious terms in America’s best-loved postmodern situation comedy Seinfeld, than it does the constitutional thought of the Founding Era.”‘ After reading bizarre claims like this, one can readily understand why historian Jack Rakove has likened the world
of Second Amendment scholarship to a scholarly Twilight Zone.” 2
Arguments such as those of Kates and Barnett are an example of
history extra-lite, to borrow Martin Flaherty’s apt characterization of so much legal scholarship produced in an originalist vein. 3 Finding evidence to show that the Bizarro Second Amendment is a fiction created by modern gun rights scholarship, and not an accurate representation of early American history, is not difficult.
Not only do the authors use Superman, Seinfeld, and “The Twilight Zone” as scholarly references, they also include a scene from “The Simpsons” as one example. That’s some serious scholaring there.
Cornell and DeDino further contend that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not an individual one.
You can save yourself the trouble of reading the 44-page work, as the 2008 SCOTUS decision in D.C. v Heller has established that the Second is absolutely an individual right, rendering the authors’ entire work as moot.
History and tradition in the Founding era. That would be from 1789 to 1860.
I don’t think Spitzer is looking at the correct half of the 1800’s.
He’d be hard pressed to find widespread adoption of gun control prior to Jim Crow.
“History and tradition in the Founding era. That would be from 1789 to 1860“
Yes, so what does the research show?
“At the end of the federalist era in 1798, James Sullivan, a prominent lawyer in Massachusetts, contrasted the radically different conceptions of liberty that emerged during the French Revolution with the idea of well regulated liberty enshrined by the American Revolution and perfected by the U.S. Constitution.4 “[L]iberty in its natural extent,” he wrote, “has nothing to do with civil society.”42 He went further, declaring “[t]here is in nature the same degree of dissimilarity between natural liberty and those principles of equal security exhibited in a well regulated society as there is between the untouched clay in the earth, and the finer vessels of China.”43 Constitutional government was not premised on the kind of liberty found in the state of nature, but in the idea of well regulated liberty.”
If one acknowledges the centrality of the concept of well regulated liberty to the constitutional thought of the founders, one can readily appreciate the irony of supporters of a modern libertarian creed invoking the ideal of the Minuteman. The ideal of liberty at the root of militia was not part of a radical individualist and anti-statist ideology. The Minuteman ideal was a quintessential expression of the idea of civic obligation and well regulated liberty.“
Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73
Fordham L. Rev. 487 (2004)
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr
“Yes, so what does the research show?”
Liar69er, it shows that supposedly-scholarly works are often rendered as nothing but so much mental masturbation by the passage of 20 years.
The authors’ faulty contentions about “well-regulated militias” and a “collective 2nd Amendment right” have been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Revisionist “HISTORIAN”!!!!!
Totally expected from a “SUBJECT” who blindly follows its “MASTERS” orders!!!!
Those laws came into reality after the civil war. Up to then the open carrying of guns was normal and very acceptable.
It was only after black people became free, that all of a sudden these gun control laws started being passed.
Like when governor Ronald Reagan signed the mulford act into law. That was co-written by a Jewish lawyer and member of the board of directors for the ACLU.
And 30 years later to be still supported by the proud g@y California state senate president, Tom Ammiano. Who publicly said he liked the law and would refuse to repeal it. He said the open carry of guns was an act of intimidation.
Which I’m sure he was intimidated. By a law biding citizen openly carrying guns. Because a g@y tyrant like Ammiano is very intimidated, when civilians are openly carrying guns.
Because h0m0sexuals like him are s0ci@list pr0gressive in their politic@l orient@ti0n.
Excellent and truthful article that mirrors the findings of a special done by MSNBC about pre-revolutionary gun laws and post revolutionary gun laws. Both articles prove how corrupt and disingenuous the current Supreme Court is.
@dacian
“Excellent and truthful article that mirrors the findings of a special done by MSNBC about pre-revolutionary gun laws and post revolutionary gun laws. Both articles prove how corrupt and disingenuous the current Supreme Court is.”
The author has told a bunch of lies here, and you are too stupid to see it. You still don’t get it you idiot. Its not that something was written down a long time ago that qualifies it – it has to have been constitutional to be analogous and nothing Spitzer outlined was ever constitutional.
Like most left wing idiots, you and Spitzer both have left out the constitution.
To Booger Brain
In reality the 2nd was written as vaguely as possible to fool ignorant Hillbillies like you into thinking you had the right to own arms. Nothing could have been further from the real truth as to why it was written.
As I have outlined many times before on T Tag surviving letters from both Jefferson and Madison prove beyond all doubt that the 2nd was written to cajole the States into joining the Union by giving them their own private Armies to murder slaves because Jefferson and Madison feared what was going on in Haiti at the time would spread to the U.S. The private armies had zero to do with an individuals right to own a weapon.
By writing the 2nd in an ambiguous manner it gave the courts the right to ban and restrict weapon ownership and that is exactly what they have been doing since 2A was written. None of the many gun control laws written before 2A were rescinded either, once again proving how wrong ignorant Hilljacks like you are about 2A.
dacian, you’re a liar.
There is NOTHING ambiguous about the 2A… It consists of two parts, part one stresses the need for a well trained (formal) militia for the defense of the populous and the second part (separated by that pesky comma) that codifies the God given right of self defense with whatever “arms” a person deems necessary…
com·ma
[ˈkämə]
NOUN
a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence, used to separate items or ideas.
Railing against hillbillies again?
Was it banjo recital night in the antifa barracks last night and they went full Deliverance on you?
Another “REVISIONIST HISTORIAN”!!!!!
Warning DACIAN is a “PAID” British Subject!!!!
shut up dacian, you and your self satisfying revisions of history and mischaracterizations and lies are not fooling anyone
Both articles prove how corrupt and disingenuous the current Supreme Court is.
Actually, it accentuates just how corrupt and disingenuous MSDNC and the author are… Another FAIL, but keep trying a little comic relief is always welcome and YOU and Minerva have been a laugh riot the last couple of days…
I wrote a thesis for my history degree on this very subject. Both this tool and msnbc are using cherry picked half truths, in other words lying.
If you’re wondering most of the earlier weapons prohibitions were enacted to discourage dueling.
Context always matters.
Lawyer lying. Distorting, exaggerating, or omitting depending on the context.
We don’t GAF what the history and tradition are. We are not giving up anything more or accepting any new laws or restrictions.
If you pass or enact any, we will not obey them.
If you try to enforce them we will kill you.
If you push us we may stop obeying existing law.
https://easyway450.blogspot.com/
Because more people are figuring out we live under an ever-expanding, malevolent government. Look up the history of trust in our government.
Spitzer (German) translates as spire-point as in the famous Spitzer bullet invented in the late 1880’s. Apparently the author of the reference piece in Time, must have a pointy head.
It matters because most of the “historical” gun control measures were and still are unconstitutional… To compare the average mostly uneducated population (who had never even heard of the Constitution never mind the second amendment) of the 1800s to early 1900s with the population of today is like comparing apples to oranges… Bruen matters because it calls out all of the unconstitutional bullshit from the historical record… We may not ever see the deregulation of full auto weapons, but I think a lot of other “regulations” WILL be overruled…
Can always push the other extreme and make semiauto bushmasters (and other autocannons starting in 20mm) a normal item and not a destructive device. Generally not one to advocate being spiteful but if they deny full auto for things that make sense may as well go for things that are more on the ludicrous side of reasoning to show them it was a bad idea.
Because most of those laws would not have withstood 14A.
The progs discovered the 14th in their attempts at continuring their unrestricted spending project (when all they need was a sitdown with Kevin McCarthy to get what they wanted).
They seem to have skipped right over in their reading of the 14th: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; Illistoistan certainly abridges MY Constitutional right (to travel armed). THERE is a project to get the 25 some conservative state AJ together on (sue IL, NY, NH, MD, CA, etc).
Why would NH be sued??? We allow anyone (not prohibited by federal law) to carry open or concealed w/o permit (including in bars, churches, airports, state house), hunt w/ suppressors, bit & own whatever semi-auto & magazines they choose (w/o sales tax), etc.
Perhaps you meant to type “NJ”?
I take it the guy has never seen the results of a flintlock or other muzzle loading rifles or pistols in terms of terminal effects/wounding. Less deadly my ass and no to any infringement by government or their “private company” corprofascist stooges
The whole “modern weapons are more advanced than flintlocks” gets me every time. Let’s set aside the hypocrisy of claiming every other Bill of Rights Amendment should apply to modern tech except the 2A somehow.
Let’s run a thought experiment instead. You tell me which is closer to the truth:
Option A, the founding fathers envisioned something like M16s capable of full auto or burst fire and able to be handled and used by a single person. They wrote the 2A to cover that.
Option B, the founding fathers had no concept of repeating arms. They had no idea that firearms tech was even capable of advancing. Even if you told them about the future, they would want citizens restricted to muskets.
LMFAO
They have never been compatible.
its pretty simple really:
because now
america is overrun by politicians
academics and other “elites”
who saw the the movie schindlers list
as a how to manual
rather than the cautionary tale
that it was intended to be
More people are waking up to that.
How Progressive Democrats plan to Overturn a Democracy
1) Divide the nation philosophically (ex, firearms)
2) Foment racial strife (ex. BLM)
3) Cause distrust of police authority (defund Police)
4) Swarm the nation’s boarders indiscriminately and unconstitutionally
5) Endanger the military strength to weaken it (Drag shows sponsored by Military)
6) Overburden citizens with unfair taxation ( FJB)
7) Encourage civil rioting and discourage accountability for all crime (Progressive DA’s)
8) Control balloting
9) Control the media (ex Twitter 1.0)
Above is the plan to overturn American Democracy
No shit.
dumb shit
possum may be a smart ass but certainly not a dumb shit.
10) Propagate fear of White (toxic) men by labeling them ALL as White Nationalists…
That assumes what America has is a Democracy.
America has not been a Republic or a Democracy since President Teddy Roosevelt. The USA is a Socialist country, but most Americans are too stupid to realize this fact.
In the 1800’s we had elected officials that wanted to build a country.
Now…..I just cant seem to get my sons paintings to sale very well. Maybe China or Ukraine would be a better market? Gee I wish I was a President.
And could I interest you in some alfalfa fields in Arizona Abdulah, I know them Arabian dairy cows need fed. No you just rent the land and suck it dry, we dont export hay, but you can transport it.
Oh never mind America’s future, we can import powdered milk from you and mix it up, nobody will no the difference.
Well.
Out in the streets their was violence
And lots of work to be done
Working so hard like a soldier
Still cant feed everyone.
How many lies can you write in so few words? Wow.
Goebbels is laughing from – you know where…
Hopefully Goebbels is shitting pineapples for eternity. The same ones over and over.
“possum may be a smart ass but certainly not a dumb shit.” Opinions are like . . . you should know the rest.
Including your opinion, amirite?
Man with no name: Including your opinion, amirite?
Answer: Yes. My opinion is my own. I don’t ask anyone to support it.
So your opinion is like — you know the rest.
YUP, to some less intelligent people. 😉
Which would be you, since you brought it up first. Thank you.
Actually, a good question. Not that the opinion is correct, but a good question.
When the SC decided that constitutionally protected rights were subject, not to strict reading of the words, but to “text, history, and tradition”. This concept makes it possible to overturn the entire Constitution, if it is abused long enough, through “text, history, and tradition (which is the author’s position).
The question now is, “When is ‘long enough’ “? At the moment, the SC rules that “text, history, and tradition”, for gun control laws (and all other constitutional disputes?) must go back to the date of ratification of the Constitution – 232yrs. When does the “text, history, and tradition” become mainly years of gun control? The text is almost unmovable from 1791, but “history and tradition” are cumulative.
Do gun control laws become constitutionally permissible when “history and tradition” demonstrate that gun control laws modify the Constitution, simply due to passage of time?
Exactly why I think this could bite us big time Sam.
“Exactly why I think this could bite us big time Sam.”
Upon seeing the phrase the first time, my thought was that given time, NFA and GCA become unassailable.
“When the SC decided that constitutionally protected rights were subject, not to strict reading of the words, but to “text, history, and tradition”. This concept makes it possible to overturn the entire Constitution“
Yes sir, The Federalists/Donald Trump set up a wonderful SCOTUS for the conservatives, looks like their tyrannical Fascism plan has been set in motion.
So I wonder why Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito failed to meet the deadline on their financial disclosure filings?
I wonder why Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving the publisher that paid her $3M:
https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has earned over $3.6 million in book royalties and advances since being appointed to the court in 2009, reported earning $149,000 in book royalties in 2022.” — PBS
Have you no decency Man… Shame on you, pointing out the flaws in Minervas hero’s… You know only Republicans are evil, corrupt, law-breaking deplorables… Everyone knows Democrats can do no wrong and IF they were step outside the lines there are NO repercussions for their actions… Hang your head Man, you should know better…
I spit on spitzer! EFF him in his biden! Dry!
Because now the folks seeking to regulate want to regulate the Right out of existence.
most of us just want to compare what it was like when we were young…with very few gun laws…. as opposed to what we see now…where we see very many…back then most people didn’t care what you had as long as you didn’t threaten anybody…and most people didn’t…there was an element of trust there that seems lacking now…what’s changed is us
Straw man: “… the one-shot flintlocks of the 18th century …”. Congress had a proposal for a semi-automatic longarm before it during the Revolution. They knew of this technology and declined to regulate it. They only declined to purchase it because the inventor was foolish enough to equate its value with multiple soldiers.
I had a comment, but was so amused by the back and forth with Minor69er, I totally forgot what I had to say about Spitzer’s ridiculous Diatribe. His essay was garbage when he wrote it, and now it’s published garbage, but it certainly wasn’t interesting enough to reread his tripe, and rediscover my original train of thought.
Comments are closed.