« Anachronism by commission and omission | Main | About the Privacy »

February 17, 2012

Comments

Once I have a nuke, what army of punks at the state level is going to volunteer to "handle" me?

I think we wouldn't need such an amendment to allow any citizen to own nukes, free of federal restriction.

So a federal law banning the private, or even state ownership of nukular weapons would be unconstitutional?

State restrictions are a separate matter, of course..

So the individual states could ban the use and possesion of these weapons, despite the "clear and unambiguous" language of the 2nd Amendment? I just want to insure I understand what you are sayin' here.

But I've noticed there's a tendency on the left to just ignore the possibility that a problem might be handled at the state level.

Well, in this instance, I could see why.

I'm sure in the glibertarian paradise of your some folks' imagination, if my neighbor set off a nuclear weapon, why, I'd just sue them in court and everything would just be hunky dory.


"So the individual states could ban the use and possesion of these weapons, despite the "clear and unambiguous" language of the 2nd Amendment? I just want to insure I understand what you are sayin' here."

Are you upset that I'm not actually a frothing at the mouth fanatic on the subject?

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. "Arms" are, as Tench Coxe put it, "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier" Or, to put it less poetically, weapons of the sort typically carried by infantry.

Unless the government starts issuing backpack nukes to soldiers leaving boot camp, nukes are not "arms". Unless the government stops issuing select fire rifles to soldiers leaving boot camp, assault rifles ARE "arms". If the standard infantry of the US government carry it, US citizens have a right to it. That's the proposition the 2nd amendment stands for.

The idea being that you would be able to constitute a militia comparable to the soldiery in a pinch, out of citizens who already owned and were familiar with all the relevant hardware. THAT is how the right in question furthers a well regulated militia.

Nukes would fall into the category of "armaments". Weapons of war, such as cannon, which are NOT carried by infantry. As such they are not covered by the 2nd amendment, either in it's original application to the federal government, or it's incorporation against the states by the 14th amendment.

They would, however, be covered under the federal government's general lack of enumerated power to ban private possession of anything at all. Nukes, yo yos, you name it. The federal government lacks the authority to ban ANYTHING, outside of the District of Columbia and such land as it has purchased with the permission of a state, where it rules as though it were a state.

Thus, neither state nor federal government may constitutionally ban anything you might expect to find a soldier of this nation carrying. States may ban other things, contingent on the details of their own constitutions. The federal government is a state for purposes of this analysis, only in D.C. and some military bases.

The recent habit at the federal level of not bothering to get state permission before buying land, of course, has constitutional implications under this analysis.

Is my position clear?

If the standard infantry of the US government carry it, US citizens have a right to it.

[...]

Is my position clear?

Not quite. If I may clarify?

You hold all private citizens have the right to own swords, pistols, select-fire automatic rifles of all sorts. Got it.

What about M249s, M240s, and their like? M2HBs? All of those are man-portable automatic rifles that every last Soldier in the US Army is trained on in Basic. How about hand grenades? Same deal. M203s? AT-4s? Claymores? Yup, man-portable and universally trained. Are all those guaranteed to citizens, and if not, why not?

How about other more specialized but still standard US infantry tools? Anti-personnel mines? M252 mortars and their equivalents? Stingers and other MANPADS? Are these not "standard" enough to count as "terrible implement[s] of the soldier", and if not, what is the precise, unambiguous demarcation line, as found in the actual text of the Constitution?

It is funny how self-described originalists read all sorts of things into the text that aren't there. But it's okay, because they're originalists.

It's just so PoMo.

"But I've noticed there's a tendency on the left to just ignore the possibility that a problem might be handled at the state level."

This after I just stated that voter registration is a state matter and that I believe there are no Constitutional implications if a state wanted to register 16 year olds to vote.

Your nightmares must be terrifying with all those straw people coming to get you.

Unless the government stops issuing select fire rifles to soldiers leaving boot camp, assault rifles ARE "arms"

So if the Dept. of Defense stopped issuing guns to the troops and limited arms to broadswords, my state could ban guns?

I'm writing my Congressman.

We all know that would never happen, but five gets ya ten that if it did, Brett and his intellectual cohorts would suddenly discover the overwhelming importance of looking to broad international trends and general consensuses, as such actions on the part of Congress and the DoD would amount nothing but a conniving living constitutionalist end-run around the framer's clear, unambiguous intent.

Are you upset that I'm not actually a frothing at the mouth fanatic on the subject?

All appearances to the contrary, why no, not at all. I just wanted to find out if my suitcase nuke was Constitutional and, since my state has not yet had the wisdom to ban nukular weapons, in all other respects is perfectly legal. The niceties must be respected.

Rest assured, when the black helicopters of doom land in my yard and the federal troops swarm out demanding to quarter company C in my living room yelling, "We got Koresh and you're next, aka bobbyp", I will have an appropriate response.

Don't like it? Call the local zoning board to invoke the penumbras emanating from their unenumerated rights.

Otherwise sue me.

Another amendment for Seb:

Strike Article 5 in its entirety and replace with the following: This Constitution may be amended at any time subject to passage by majority vote in favor of said amendment in the US House of Representatives and subsequently ratified by a majority vote of eligible citizens.

Let the fun begin.

Dear President Obama,

My house is for sale, and I'm willing to let it go for a reasonable price. I write to ask if the federal government is interested in making an offer. I am willing to carry the contract, even though I know you guys can print money at will.

I am given to understand that the government is interested in buying back all land in the US of A in order to facilitate a coup d'etat over unenumerated Constitutional states sovereignty, and do an end run around the US Constitution. I cannot fathom the reason for such a program, but hey, it's no big deal to me. My state government is populated by bigger crooks and liars than any US Congresscritter. Screw 'em.

Please reply within 48 hours. I have an offer pending from some prince in Saudi Arabia.

Good luck with your re-election effort.

Regards,

bobbyp, your snark would be improved by actually reading the Constitution:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

They can buy all the land they want, if they don't get a legislature's permission for it, the state retains sovereignty over that territory, and the federal government has no more rights concerning that area than any other ordinary land owner.

If the standard infantry of the US government carry it, US citizens have a right to it. That's the proposition the 2nd amendment stands for.

This is a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd, but it's also not actually in the text.

An equally reasonable interpretation would be that the right only extends to folks who actually are participating in a militia. As in, a military organization under the command of and answerable to the state government.

Also not in the text, but no further a logical leap than yours.

And, per envy, I'm curious to know if, in Brett's perfect world, anyone with an inclination to do so gets to load up on Claymores.

As far as private citizen ownership of nuclear weapons, if you want to be taken seriously at all, maybe you should leave that thought experiment off the table.

And, per envy, I'm curious to know if, in Brett's perfect world, anyone with an inclination to do so gets to load up on Claymores.

and i demand that all citizens be allowed to carry grenades! as many as they can fit on their belt.

An equally reasonable interpretation would be that the right only extends to folks who actually are participating in a militia. As in, a military organization under the command of and answerable to the state government.

Also not in the text, but no further a logical leap than yours.

Well, I would say that it's a far more logical leap than Brett's since the 2nd Amendment actually does mention in the text "a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state". That phrase seems to be ignored by those reading the text of the Constitution so, so carefully. Justice Scalia's interpretation rendered the phrase virtually meaningless - a prefatory whim. A common rule of statutory construction is that no word should be rendered meaningless.

I'm not sure what meaning "well regulated militia" has if there's no connection whatsoever with the right to bear arms and militia service.

This is a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd, but it's also not actually in the text.

I actually considered throwing this into the conversation about a hundred or so comments back, but I immediately saw a whole bunch of holes I could poke into it, including MANPADS, Javelin and the confusingly-named Predator man-portable multipurpose missile. And small mortars. Also, there are man-portable recoilless rifles, the aforementioned grenates, claymore mines, etc. And we're not even getting into consideration of things that you could carry if you had a powered suit, which are now in their production infancy, if not yet quite what Joe Haldeman had in mind.

the confusingly-named Predator man-portable multipurpose missile

Coming soon to an adult newsstand near you.

Think of the acreage one might need for practice target ranges for all of those cool toys.

The zoning issues alone could start a shooting war.

i hope to retire in The Year Of The Confusingly-named Predator Man-portable Multipurpose Missile .

sapient: Well, I would say that it's a far more logical leap than Brett's since the 2nd Amendment actually does mention in the text "a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state". That phrase seems to be ignored by those reading the text of the Constitution so, so carefully.

That probably depends on what is meant by "militia." I found Brett's 3:48pm 3/4/12 comment pretty reasonable. I think envy points out some practical problems (or necessary consequences), though those could be cured by (perhaps) limiting the right to bear arms to those actually issued to infantry as a matter of course, as illustrated (I imagine) in this scene, but I'll cop to ignorance on that point. Are you "issued" grenades (or claymores) like rifles? Are you even issued rifles these days?

those could be cured by (perhaps) limiting the right to bear arms to those actually issued to infantry as a matter of course,

and then we'd be stuck with an endless debate over what to 'issue' infantry because of its effects on what citizens could carry.

gun enthusiasts would start demanding that infantry be issued all kinds of crazy weapons. and then they'd scream that anyone who objects must hate the troops and want them to die defenseless.

Coming soon to an adult newsstand near you.

% (rimshot)

FWIW, "Predator man-portable multipurpose missile" is a descriptor of my own invention, and was not intentionally humorous.

The unintentional stuff is probably where I get the most laughs.

More Republican hate legislation.

But it's okay if it's not happening in your state. Federalism!

If you make everything national, that could be an all US policy someday!

Harder to gerrymander the whole nation.

I think envy points out some practical problems (or necessary consequences), though those could be cured by (perhaps) limiting the right to bear arms to those actually issued to infantry as a matter of course, as illustrated (I imagine) in this scene, but I'll cop to ignorance on that point. Are you "issued" grenades (or claymores) like rifles? Are you even issued rifles these days?

Grenades aren't issued in the same way as small arms, as they are, well, explosives. When the one you have is used, it's gone, while you can repeatedly practice using your assigned rifle. Or your assigned Squad Automatic Weapon. Or your assigned 50-cal. Or your assigned grenade launcher. Or your assigned mortar...

Again, even if you take this "reasonable" route (which, again, is gonna be hard to limit to just assault rifles, as all the above is pretty standard infantry armaments), it's still going far beyond the text and well into the realm of Framer mind-reading. And if you're further trying to draw arbitrary lines between rifles and heavier material, it's going even farther into the wooly wilds of originalist telepathy...

OK then, swords and flintlocks for everyone.

Soldiers' assigned weapons are stored in an armsroom and are only issued when they are to be used for training or for war. Soldiers are inspected after training to make sure they don't have bullets (even though they could buy them at Walmart). If the argument is that they can have Soldiers weapons, then they should have Soldier rules.

Soldiers can't even have concealed carry of personal weapons on post. And have to register their personal weapons, and if in the barracks store them in the arms room where they have to have permission to get them.

"Soldiers can't even have concealed carry of personal weapons on post."
That worked out really well at Fort Hood.

"Well, I would say that it's a far more logical leap than Brett's since the 2nd Amendment actually does mention in the text "a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state"."

Seems more logical, once you mentally replace "people" with "militia" in the actual text. You know, "right of the People"? Same phrase that appears in the amendment immediately before and after, and means the people?

I'm not a textualist, I'm an originalist. There are some lines of text in the Constitution which are complete unto themselves, but for most of it you actually do have to do further inquiry, such as reading relevant documents from about the time the amendment was adopted.

The difference between originalists and living constitutionalists, I guess, is that originalists do further inquiry into "what it meant", while living constitutionalists do further inquiry into "what we think it should mean".

In this case further inquiry convinced me that the right to keep and bear arms was indeed meant to further a well regulated militia, by providing a body of people suitably armed, and familiar with those arms, from which it could be raised. Notably, from which it could be raised even if the government didn't want it to be possible to raise one.

It's like if you thought your local government might eventually be taken over by arsonists, and so wrote into the city charter a right to own pumps and ladder trucks, because a well trained volunteer fire department was necessary to the place not burning down.

Wouldn't do you any good if you just guaranteed the right of the city fire department, subject to the potential arsonists' orders, to have that stuff, would it?

It must be remembered of every amendment in the Bill of Rights, that they are not expressions of trust in government. They presume a government that wants to do the wrong thing. And while they may have thought a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state, they were not such fools as to be confident the government of a state would want it to remain free...

More Republican hate legislation.

Withhold benefits of citizenship from non-citizens? Pass the smelling salts!

Here's that right-wing rag, The Orlando Sentinel, on the topic:

We remain ardent supporters of immigration reform at the federal level — where such policy rightly belongs — that would create an earned path to legal status.

But it's unreasonable to ask Florida taxpayers — including those struggling to afford higher education for their own families — to shoulder tuition costs for illegal immigrants.

Racists. Haters.

Notably, from which it could be raised even if the government didn't want it to be possible to raise one.

Raised by whom?

The Constitution includes several mentions of the militia. The things it says about the militia:

Congress has responsibility to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. The states have the responsibility to appoint officers and conduct training, in line with Congress' discipline and direction.

Congress has the responsibility to call the militia into action to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion.

When Congress calls the militia into federal service, the POTUS is their commander in chief.

In the 2nd Amendment, having a well regulated militia is explicitly stated as the reason for guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms to private citizens.

In the 5th Amendment, crimes committed while in active service in the militia are exempted from due process protections.

That is the full scope of what the text of the Constitution *says* about the militia.

I fully agree that the motivations of the folks who wrote the Constitution were that the militia specifically, and arms held by private individuals in general, were seen as an effective balance to federal power, especially federal military power.

Folks at that time were also suspicious of a federal standing army.

I further agree that it was dead normal for anyone who could afford one to own and regularly use a firearm.

What none of this amounts to is a doctrine about potential militias that could be raised, if need be, by entities outside the scope of state authority, or outside of the discipline of Congress.

I'm open to the argument that there is a contextual backstory, that can help us understand what the folks that wrote the constitution had in mind at the time.

I'm not open to the idea that there is some secret hidden meaning that is plainly contrary to what the text actually says.

What none of this amounts to is a doctrine about potential militias that could be raised, if need be, by entities outside the scope of state authority, or outside of the discipline of Congress.

I'm open to the argument that there is a contextual backstory, that can help us understand what the folks that wrote the constitution had in mind at the time.

Here it is: on the frontier, beyond the US border back then and even within the border, the militia was organized and called out locally. No time to send a rider on a 6 day round trip to the capital and homing pigeons were unreliable.

The militia concept was simple: everyone owned a firearm. From that "everyone", a militia could be raised and organized for the common defense. You can't raise a militia without an armed citizenry.

That we don't do that any more doesn't take away from the fact that the 2d A says what it says. It's the people's right to keep and bear. It's the gov't's call whether to organize them into a militia and when to call it out. In a democracy, in theory, the people elect their leaders so, indirectly, the militia is called up by the people.

If the argument is that it's outmoded, I might agree. If the argument is that the people get the same arsenal as a modern combat infantry brigade, I disagree. If the argument is that, because it's outmoded, it should be judicially emasculated, I don't agree with that either.

Withhold benefits of citizenship from non-citizens?

Last I read, there are ever increasing numbers of foreign students in American colleges. But your housekeeper's kids? No way!

But it's unreasonable to ask Florida taxpayers — including those struggling to afford higher education for their own families — to shoulder tuition costs for illegal immigrants.

Yeah, see, this is predicated on the idea that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, an idea that not only assumes facts not in evidence, but is contradicted by the available evidence.

Also, any children who were born here to illegal immigrants are citizens anyway, and cannot be punished for their parents' immigration status nor denied the benefits of citizenship on that basis.

I don't know if it's hateful, but it's probably self-defeating - or maybe counterproductive would be a better term. In any case, it's likely to make things worse for everyone in the long run, as opposed to, um, like, better.

If the argument is that the people get the same arsenal as a modern combat infantry brigade, I disagree. If the argument is that, because it's outmoded, it should be judicially emasculated, I don't agree with that either.

I'm not sure what you mean by "judicially emasculated." I know of no one (myself included) who is hoping to ban all firearms of any type. I recognize that people hunt. I understand that some people want to own a gun in case a threatening intruder comes into their home. Nobody I know wants to take away guns that reasonably serve those purposes, including me, and I'm on the far end of the gun control spectrum. I don't think it "emasculates" the amendment to remember the context in which it was passed, and to weigh the "right to bear arms" against issues of public safety, just as we do with all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

If the argument is that, because it's outmoded, it should be judicially emasculated, I don't agree with that either.

Neither do I, but I guess it depends on what "judicially emasculated" means. Does court affirmation of registration requirements or restrictions on the ownership of certain weapons qualify in all cases? (I'm guessing you'd say no, McKinney, but that others here would say yes.)

I've been of the opinion that, so long as you have reasonable legal access to a reasonable variety of firearms of practical use (and maybe historical interest, but that might be outside 2nd Amendment concerns), you have the right to keep and bear arms.

I developed a sock analogy a while ago. If the people have the right to wear socks, but it turned out that purple socks were somehow problematic, and they were banned, you couldn't really say that you were thereby denied the right to wear socks, so long as there were lots of other colors of socks readily available.

Now, if the ban was on all colors of socks except magenta, and magenta socks were sufficiently hard to come by, that would be another story.

I don't think it "emasculates" the amendment to remember the context in which it was passed, and to weigh the "right to bear arms" against issues of public safety, just as we do with all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

Well, we do that now. You can't pack a pistol into a bar. You have to be licensed, in Texas, to carry a concealed pistol and no one can carry a sidearm publicly that is out in the open.

Where I part company with Sapient and others is the notion that personal ownership of a non-automatic weapon can be in any way regulated. Ditto the right to transport that weapon to a place where it might be safely and lawfully used, whether a target range or a place to hunt or shoot. The right is empty if you can have a gun at home but can't take it anywhere without the state's permission to use it. Apparently it is aggressively regulated in some states. To me, that is unconstitutional.

McTx: Well, we do that now. You can't pack a pistol into a bar. You have to be licensed, in Texas, to carry a concealed pistol and no one can carry a sidearm publicly that is out in the open.

Where I part company with Sapient and others is the notion that personal ownership of a non-automatic weapon can be in any way regulated.

How do you square these two paragraphs?

From Slarti's link: Even for Florida residents, the cost of higher education keeps climbing. State universities have been raising their in-state tuitions 15 percent a year, in part to make up for deep cuts in direct state funding. The system is in no position to create a new discount category for illegal immigrants.

Doesn't the "deep cuts in direct state funding" undercut the argument that FL taxpayers are "shoulder[ing] tuition costs for illegal immigrants" just a bit, not to mention that said illegal immigrants (and their non-college attending parents/relatives) pay FL taxes?

From sapient's link to the NYTimes: Republican Senator Barry Loudermilk. "Even when illegal immigrants pay out-of-state tuition, that does not fully cover the cost of a higher education," he added.

Uh, don't the Georgia public colleges do more than just educate undergrads?

How do you square these two paragraphs?

I can own a gun and not be allowed to carry it to a department store. I can own a bottle of whiskey and not be allowed to bring it to public events or schools.

You can't pack a pistol into a bar.

You can in Ohio.

How is that not regulation of "personal ownership of a non-automatic weapon?"

there are ever increasing numbers of foreign students in American colleges

Yes, that is true. But it's also irrelevant. There were lots of foreign students around back when I was in college, but not one of them paid in-state tuition.

Yeah, see, this is predicated on the idea that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes

No, it's not. See, nonresidents pay taxes. People who live there and don't qualify as residents pay taxes. People who only stay there for the school year and are nonresident pay taxes. But the rules are that you don't get in-state tuition unless you are a legal resident.

Why do you think foreign nationals here under legitimate visas should have to pay higher cost for education than do illegal aliens?

I see what happened - two different issues got conflated. The proposed Georgia law has nothing to do with in-state vs. out-of-state tuition; it would simply bar them from attending at all. In-state vs. out-of-state tuition rates is a separate issue.

See, sapient linked to an article discussing the Georgia law, then you linked to an article about Florida as if it were about the same thing (Here's that right-wing rag, The Orlando Sentinel, on the topic:), which it isn't.

Maybe next time RTFA?

People who live there and don't qualify as residents pay taxes.

Are these the famous snow birds?

Brett: I'm not a textualist, I'm an originalist. There are some lines of text in the Constitution which are complete unto themselves, but for most of it you actually do have to do further inquiry, such as reading relevant documents from about the time the amendment was adopted.

And what of the fact that the majority of the population of the United States at the time of adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had no say in its adoption? How should that weigh into interpreting the text?

Maybe next time RTFA?

That's a decent suggestion, but it just might be worth considering that a hatey Republican state legislature that lets brown peoples attend its schools legally might be less hatey and racisty and more unwilling to put up with teh illegals.

No, it's got to be all about hate. Or racism. Or whatevs.

Here it is: on the frontier, beyond the US border back then and even within the border, the militia was organized and called out locally. No time to send a rider on a 6 day round trip to the capital and homing pigeons were unreliable.

"Beyond the US border" would seem to also be beyond the scope of the US Constitution. Certainly if we're discussing areas not under US control.

And, there are many cases from Way Back When of military action being delayed while the relevant authorities waited for the militia to assemble. So, apparently round trips were involved.

When bands of local guys rose up to "take matters into their own hand" they were generally insurrectionists.

And, when they did, they were generally opposed by the actual militia, which is to say an organized non-professional military force, made up of citizens, under the command and direction of government actors.

You want to own a gun, fine with me. But free ranging bands of armed people, not under the command and control of either state or federal authority, was not what the founders intended by the term 'militia'.

It's not hate legislation. It's predicated on the notion that, if you're not here legally, the only thing you're entitled to do while here is travel to the border and exit. Do not pass go. Do not spend 4 years getting a degree first.

Now, I understand that people who don't like our immigration laws, and place no particular value on the rule of law, object to the idea that being here illegally should cause any inconveniences at all. That doesn't mean that denying public services to people who aren't legally supposed to be here in the first place is predicated on hating them.

It's based on the fact that they're in the wrong country.

Brett: It's not hate legislation. It's predicated on the notion that, if you're not here legally, the only thing you're entitled to do while here is travel to the border and exit.

It it's not hate, the GA and FL bills are certainly picking an interesting target then.

What? People that are visiting contrary to the wishes of the US government?

*headscratch*

Slarti: What? People that are visiting contrary to the wishes of the US government?

It's the subset that is telling.

I think the issue is that, of all the things to focus on, the state legislatures in question are focused on illegal immigrants going to college. I don't necessarily think of it as being hateful, but I do think of it as small-minded, petty and backwards in priority.

If people are here illegally and they get deported in accordance with the law, then they won't be able to go college here. Beyond that, we're talking political football at the state level, rather than solving actual problems.

Some of these people may eventually become citizens. It will be all the better if they already have a good education when that happens.

But we'd prefer to further marginalize people, mostly the ones in their late teens, because that works out so well, what with the wonderful combination of energy and angst that results in the sort of law and order we seek.

Yes, there's a sureal aspect to it, like having a discussion about whether the vagrant who broke into your house should sleep on the sofa, or in the guest bedroom. The obvious answer is, "Neither", but the police refuse to eject him, or let you do it, so there you are, having the sureal discussion.

There's something crazy going on, but it's the federal refusal to enforce immigration laws, or permit the states to do anything to further their enforcment. Not that states typically don't want to offer in-state tuition to people who aren't even supposed to be in the country.

"vagrant"

You can't pack a pistol into a bar.
You can in Ohio.

LOL.

On the road from Kent OH to where my in-laws live in Stow, there's a store that sells booze and ammo. Cracks me up every time I drive by.

There's something crazy going on, but it's the federal refusal to enforce immigration laws, or permit the states to do anything to further their enforcment.

Could be, but if you want to make immigration enforcement a state responsibility, you are going to need to amend the constitution.

It's the subset that is telling.

The illegal subset is the entire set, no?

"vagrant"

Yeah.

What if the "vagrant" has been cleaning and performing repairs on your house, you've been paying him (not very much) to do so, and, in turn, he's been paying rent and buying his own groceries, and you, because there's no lease involved, tell him he's not allowed to use the bathroom anymore, even though he leaves it cleaner than he found it every time he uses it?

(See? Like I've said, analogies really are fun!)

It's true, though, russell -- as of this year, you can carry a loaded, concealed weapon into bars in Ohio. I'm sure this will have no ill effects whatsoever.

And now there's a state assemblyman trying to push through a bill that drivers who have loaded handguns in their cars no longer have to tell police about it when stopped.

On another note, something tells me that when you say the word "Hispanic" to Brett his brain spits out

I think the issue is that, of all the things to focus on, the state legislatures in question are focused on illegal immigrants going to college.

I think that it's best if, before making claims of this kind, that you not only RTFA but also RTFB. And when you do, tell me how it's only all about college education.

It's true, though, russell -- as of this year, you can carry a loaded, concealed weapon into bars in Ohio. I'm sure this will have no ill effects whatsoever.

Are there any local restrictions that you know of? I only ask because I've been in my fair share of Cleveland dive bars, and the idea that some of the characters I've run into are more likely to be packing heat is not comforting.

Grenades aren't issued in the same way as small arms, as they are, well, explosives. When the one you have is used, it's gone, while you can repeatedly practice using your assigned rifle.

True for ammunition too, unless you use air powered rifles (the last time I know that those were used by regulars was in the Napoleonic Age). Also there are types of grenades that are the true thing but can be temporarily disabled so they can be (re)used for practice (btw, navies do the same with torpedos because they are so damn expensive that blowing them up in practice is considered waste).
Historically rifle practice did not involve much actual use of even blanks, let alone life ammo. The Prussian army before 1807 did not issue any life cartridges to soldiers in peacetime and it was seen as revolutionary that in 1814 new regulations required 30 life shots per man and year. One should not underestimate how expensive and difficult to acquire gunpowder was. It's interesting to learn how much the science of chemistry got propelled (pun intended) by states looking for ways to become independent of expensive and unreliable sulphur and sal(t)peter imports. The German Bundeswehr had some embarassing press reports in the 90ies that orders were issued 'tankers shout "Bumm", infanterists shout "Peng"' in excercises because budget shortfalls had eaten the ammo supplies.

...tell me how it's only all about college education.

They were focused on college enough to put it in the bill, whether or not there were other methods of exclusion included. If you can quote me using the phrase "only all," go for it.

It's true, though, russell -- as of this year, you can carry a loaded, concealed weapon into bars in Ohio. I'm sure this will have no ill effects whatsoever.

You can carry a concealed weapon in bars and restaurants in Virginia as well. Of course, it makes us safer. That is, it makes me think twice about frequenting bars. I thought this was entertaining (from the article):

"He was charged with the latter offense — even though he had a permit to carry the gun — because he had been drinking in the deli while in possession of a concealed firearm. The law forbids concealed-gun permit holders to drink alcohol while they are inside bars and restaurants with guns hidden from view. Patrons who legally carry firearms openly into bars and restaurants can drink freely."

"On another note, something tells me that when you say the word "Hispanic" to Brett his brain spits out."

You do realize, don't you, that the voices in your head tell us about what's going on in YOUR head, not mine?

Yeah, yeah, you're a fine one to talk, BB, with your constant "liberals think this" and "you think that" and blah blah blah blah blah. I'll bet you $50 you can't go 24 hours without claiming to know exactly what's inside another person's head. If you can dish it, you can take it.

BTW, I am not the person who leaped to the word "vagrant" whilst trying to build an analogy involving potential college freshmen, so.

Are there any local restrictions that you know of?

As with any other business, bars can post a sign prohibiting firearms on their premises, but otherwise, no. It's a state law. And concealed carriers are, of course, not supposed to drink if they're in bars. (wink, wink)

Slarti: The illegal subset is the entire set, no?

Sure, though other than the vague NYTimes reference to "omnibus" there wasn't much of a clue in the two articles that the bills/laws were about anything other than higher education.

Fortunately, I'm sure SCOTUS will rule that this area of law is entirely pre-empted by federal law on the topic, as it has in many other areas of concern to MNEs and make the GA and FL laws moot.

They were focused on college enough to put it in the bill

Mentioned once. Admittedly short bill, but there's quite a bit of things in there unrelated to higher education. But the higher education bit; it's stricken; dunno if strikethrus mean anything.

Tell me about the focus, again? Your word. Sure, the focus in the NYT article was on college education, but I'd sure like to hear how you think the focus of the actual bill was on college education.

Maybe I'm missing something; wouldn't be the first time.

"my fair share of Cleveland dive bars, and the idea that some of the characters I've run into are more likely to be packing heat is not comforting."

LOL

Travelling from point A to B Sunday night I got caught up in a snow storm on I90 and pulled into some sleazy section of Cleveland (are there actually any non-sleazy sections in Clevland? In Ohio for tyhat matter?) for the night. As I was thirsty I wandered out of the motor lodge and into a dive bar. I had a Makarov 9mm in my waiste band under my coat.

But the higher education bit; it's stricken; dunno if strikethrus mean anything.

The strikeout was under this:

"(d) Verification of lawful presence under this Code section shall not be required:"

which I take to mean that postsecondary eduction was originally exempted from the requirement to produce verification of lawful presence, but that exception was removed by the strikeout.

You have to be sufficiently focused on something to make an exception for it and later decide to remove that exception. The bill isn't focused on college attendance, but the people writing it (also my words: "state legislatures" rather than "bill") were when they decided to make the exception and when they decided to remove that exception.

That's as may be, hsh. I yield to your expertise in the matter.

Interesting that this bill specifically requires adherence to 8 USC 1623; is the thinking here that SCOTUS will elect to strike down that statute because Georgia is actually requiring adherence?

Now we're back to the larger question of: why bother having rules if they're not enforced?

It's my understanding G. Washington took a rather dim view of militias since they usually were ill disciplined and tended to break under fire. Probably a central government prejudice on his part, cf Shay's Rebellion.

But he was one of the Founders, and we KNOW what he thought.

:)

"Interesting that this bill specifically requires adherence to 8 USC 1623; is the thinking here that SCOTUS will elect to strike down that statute because Georgia is actually requiring adherence?"

There are two schools of thought concerning the Supremacy clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

One of those schools of thought is that it makes federal policy supreme.

The other is that it makes federal law supreme.

The distinction isn't very important most of the time, but in this case it's the very heart of the matter: The state laws the federal government is suing to get overturned are in perfect alignment with federal law, it's federal policy, not the state laws, which runs 180 degrees to the federal law.

And, of course, which of those words is actually found in the clause? I think it's "law", not "policy".

Snow storm? That was barely even a dusting. It had all melted by Sunday afternoon. East Coasters just don't know how to drive, is the problem.

Northeast Ohio's snowfall is down 92% this winter from a year ago. I've used my snowblower exactly twice. Good thing there's no such thing as climate change.

Good thing there is climate change and that it is changing for the better where I live. Nice warm winter with minimal snow, perfect. May the trend continue unabated for the next several decades.

Who's an east coaster?

oh, and what the hell are those retarded 'internet cafes' in Cleveland, at least on the far west side of it, that appear to be actually some kind of dingy low grade, skirt the law, gambling joints with crack head clientel. Low budget man, low budget.

Here I thought I was going to get a cup of coffe and plug in my laptop and check up on a couple of things. Instead some filthy savages attempted to hustle me.

Next time I'm flying right over Ohio.

God bless the people in your life who you imagine think you're clever. Truly, they bear a burden.

It's ok if you fly past Ohio. We won't miss you.

Meant to add: Yeah, wherever you're from, if you had to pull off the road in a "snowstorm" that resulted in less than half an inch of accumulation, you are Not A Good Driver. Like, at all.

Also, if you were carrying a concealed firearm without an Ohio-issued CCW permit, I'm kinda not really interested in your arguments about federalism and state's rights any more.

And, when they did, they were generally opposed by the actual militia, which is to say an organized non-professional military force, made up of citizens, under the command and direction of government actors.

You want to own a gun, fine with me. But free ranging bands of armed people, not under the command and control of either state or federal authority, was not what the founders intended by the term 'militia'.

I could have been clearer. By borders, I meant state borders. For many years, the US owned the Louisiana and Ohio Territories. For years before that, there was ongoing war between settlers and Native American tribes. These continued as whites moved west. Militias were local in nature and were called out locally when an attack took place. Sure, there were instances when a governor would call out the militia, but there was no limit on a local call out. It happened all the time in Texas and it happened at Lexington and Concord. My point was simply that, for 2d A purposes, there could be no militia to call out without an armed citizenry.

I yield to your expertise in the matter.

If you are ever to yield to my expertise, it should only be when I tell you, in my expert opinion, that you should not yield to my expertise.

East Coasters just don't know how to drive, is the problem.

I resemble that remark. We've gotten almost no snow this winter where I live, but last winter we got a total of roughly seven feet. I recall no driving problems. ;)

Slarti: Now we're back to the larger question of: why bother having rules if they're not enforced?

Limited resources and shifting priorities?

Brett: The distinction isn't very important most of the time, but in this case it's the very heart of the matter: The state laws the federal government is suing to get overturned are in perfect alignment with federal law, it's federal policy, not the state laws, which runs 180 degrees to the federal law.

Well, what does federal law say? Does it merely say "if you're in the country illegally you're subject to deportation (after some sort of process)?" Does it say "you're barred from obtaining any kind of gov't service whatsoever?" (which I think would be unconstitutional under SCOTUS precedent) I'm curious (though not enough to look it up myself, at least not right now).

East Coasters just don't know how to drive, is the problem

You will retract that, sir, or it shall be pistols at dawn.

Limited resources and shifting priorities?

The limited resources part is why states are trying to crack down. Or maybe it's just a coincidental expression of xenophobia that just happens to line up with states running short on money.

Well, what does federal law say?

If you look up the section of US code cited, you can see for yourself. It's not really very hard to do; even a 50-year-old conservative can do it.

'My point was simply that, for 2d A purposes, there could be no militia to call out without an armed citizenry."

A big lotta good it did the Native American tribes.

They was jus trying to protect their wigwams, whatever those were, but I'm pretty sure they had all the signs of, whatchamacallit, private property.

I'm startin to cipher now the origins of that there second amendment we pale faces conjured up -- it came from the same place private property did -- from the Great father at the top of the sky.

Least that's what the Native Americans figured out as they got moved farther West: we was just makin sh*t up and it stuck because we had the technology to enforce that sh*t.

Indian: "Why, white brother, do you take our land and steal our horses?"

Calvary Officer: Well, now, uh, umm (now turning to his adjutant with the law degree who carried the important papers laying out the rationalizations and pleading sotto-voiced: What should I tell the Chief here? Adjutant (frantically): Geez, I don't know, tell him .. tell him it's our private property, whatever the f*ck that means!) ....
the great White Father has proclaimed this here the property of the United States Government. (that's going to cause problems later, he thinks to himself)!

Chief: All it it?

Officer: Les jus say you starts walking west, and we'll let you know when you're off the property.

Indian Chief (eying the officer straight-faced): I underestimate your cleverness, oh blue-eyed one. But your appeal to natural law has moved me, despite my reservations (that's a trans-tribal Native American pun, which always went over white people's heads).
May I interest you in my oldest daughter so that we may stay here until buffalo season is over?

Officer: I don't think so, Chief, because as it happens my men are manifest destinying your slut daughter as we speak."

Sorry, my grammar suffers from the "Little Big Man' syndrome, wherein we white folks are the ones who talks funny.


"You will retract that, sir, or it shall be pistols at dawn."

No fair shooting a man in his bed.

Slarti: The limited resources part is why states are trying to crack down. Or maybe it's just a coincidental expression of xenophobia that just happens to line up with states running short on money.

I guess I misunderstood your point re: rules w/o enforcement. I don't think the states will be saving any money with these omnibus laws.

If you look up the section of US code cited, you can see for yourself. It's not really very hard to do; even a 50-year-old conservative can do it.

Thanks. I meant federal immigration law generally, but that provision is right on point and clear (thanks Bill!). So, seems I was wrong upthread in certain respects (if I can say that on the internets). My bad.

And I would note that the Count's allegory at 10:38 pretty much sets forth my general feelings on this issue. The current immigration laws and the general approach from the right and some on the left lack a certain "there but for the grace of God" manner; not to mention wanton cruelty in specific cases/categories.

Not that this sort of thing is limited to illegal immigration or to the right or left, as I'm often amazed at the ability of folks to approve of or at least dismiss any sort of hideousness if it's applied to someone who, in their view, has "broken the rules."

Regarding the subject of immigration and in-state college tuition, it occurs to me that while Slart may have a legitimate point, the modern-day (what century is this, anyway?) Republican Party (of which Slart is not by any means a directly-owned subsidiary) has a funky way of bringing the case of what to do about "The Other" to the fore as election season approaches.

In the case of the approaching 2012 Presidential election, this particular subject will jostle the where's-this-interloper-in-the-White-House-from-agin? paranoia.

Like putting the issue of gay rights on ballots -- Rove-style. It gets the 27% hepped up good and proper and down to the polls.

I don't think the states will be saving any money with these omnibus laws.

That's at least the stated reason that they're doing this: that even higher out-of-state tuition doesn't cover the actual cost.

Which may be true, or not. I haven't seen anyone showing the actual numbers.

So, seems I was wrong upthread in certain respects (if I can say that on the internets). My bad.

Oh. Well. Now you're forcingshaming me to admit that I misread the article, as Phil pointed out, and also initially misread the bill itself, which is why I was attempting to push on the fact that it was somewhat of an omnibus bill that covered more than just education. But it turned out that was indeed the point of focus, even though "education" wasn't mentioned much.

Slarti: That's at least the stated reason that they're doing this: that even higher out-of-state tuition doesn't cover the actual cost.

Which may be true, or not. I haven't seen anyone showing the actual numbers.

I think the problem here is that colleges/universities are not solely in the business of educating undergrads, but also engaged in research etc., so dividing the annual operating budget of the University by the # of undergrads, which in my experience is what college administrators tend to do when attempting to show "what a great bargain!" tuition is. It's like a magazine publisher telling you you got a great bargain on your subscription because the price didn't cover the cost of producing the magazine, while conveniently ignoring other sources of revenue.

I'm guessing that's at least part of what's going on here. I have no evidence for this, of course.

"Not that this sort of thing is limited to illegal immigration or to the right or left, as I'm often amazed at the ability of folks to approve of or at least dismiss any sort of hideousness if it's applied to someone who, in their view, has "broken the rules.""

It's not regarded as hideousness to return somebody from Mexico to Mexico. It's just restoring the status quo ante. It's like somebody robs a bank, when you take the bag of money away, that's not a "fine".

As for "there but for the grace of God", any American who wants to can put themselves in an illegal immigrant's shoes, by illegally crossing the border in the other direction. I hear Mexico is a lot harsher on illegal immigrants than we are, though.

Sure, I'll take a jab at the illegal immigration tar baby.

Here is what strikes me.

Lots of people from Mexico, and Central and South America in general, come here because they can make a better living than they can at home. They frequently endure a non-trivial level of hardship to do so.

Many of them would love to become citizens and live here, if that option were available to them.

Most, by far, of them work while they are here. They work low paying jobs, often more than one, for lots of hours. They are hard-working folks.

Slarti asked, why bother having rules if they're not being enforced?

I would ask, why have rules that are counterproductive and not enforceable? At least, not enforceable without turning the nation into a hostile armed camp?

Our current immigration laws are biased away from admitting (a) folks from this hemisphere, (b) folks who don't have wonderful educations and professional resumes, and (c) folks who aren't related to folks who are already here.

That excludes some millions of folks who very strongly want to come here, who are willing to make large sacrifices to come here, and who have demonstrated a desire and ability to work their freaking behinds off once they arrive.

And, for that matter, for whose labor there is apparently a robust market.

My recommended solution for the illegal immigrant "crisis" is (a) an intelligent path to citizenship for folks who are already here, who have made lives here, and who wish to stay, and (b) relaxed quotas that would let folks who aren't here but want to come here, to come.

It's not like they aren't here already. And it's not like they aren't pulling their weight.

The alternative is another few decades of stupid mole whack games.

Until, of course, we manage for bugger-up our own economy sufficiently that it's not worth it to folks to bother coming here. But that's a topic for another thread, or perhaps this thread in another 100 posts or so.

Brett: It's not regarded as hideousness to return somebody from Mexico to Mexico. It's just restoring the status quo ante.

As with most things, it depends. Is deporting a 16 year old who has lived in the US since he/she was 2 to Pakistan restoring the status quo ante? Or denying a similarly situated 18 year old the ability to attend college in the US? We could, of course, distinguish those cases from the 35 year old Mexican who runs across the border, but that doesn't seem to be the preferred position of much of anyone (I guess the DREAM Act is a step in this direction).

Also, I forget Brett, how would you characterize your political philosophy?

As for "there but for the grace of God", any American who wants to can put themselves in an illegal immigrant's shoes, by illegally crossing the border in the other direction.

So, what did you personally do to earn your U.S. citizenship?

Basically, what Russell said.

Get most of the people here now on the grid (deport some, sure, as we do now). Increase the allowed legal immigration level, and make the process easier. Couple that with better enforcement, focusing on the employer side.

That seems rational to me, and does not require the armed camp approach (we're doing more than enough of that with the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" already).

The comments to this entry are closed.