BHMCruiser

The thing that keeps drawing me back to this show through all the cringe and often poorly-conceived narrative is that the dialogue is frequently fantastic. For my money, this is brilliant: Tom: "Don't worry, Greg. It's a nice safe space where you don't have to pretend to like Hamilton." Greg: "I like Hamilton." Tom: "Sure you go. We all do." Just phenomenal to write something that solid and incisive while also saying more than just the one literal thing. Greg's liking Hamilton destroyed the safe space and Tom knows it's not really a safe space anyway.

Agreed. Thanks for the rec on the Ken Onion sharpener. Every thing in my house made out of metal has a razor sharp edge on it now.

I thought the difference between version 2 and version 3 was completely enormous. le Gris interpreted the intentional leaving of shoes on the stairwell as an invitation and everything else was playful banter. Anyway the duel slammed.

But please don’t tell my clients

Fine I’m an unconstitutional lawyer then

Every time you post I’m more and more impressed. Really strong stuff.

Idiotic

Got it

ALL CAPS ANALYSIS

Blah blah read the legislative history

Blah blah overload. The NRA didn’t even bring Heller.

That law was unconstitutional

It doesn’t

Holy smokes

manifest inconsistency The Seventh Circuit basically even said so, holding in Highland Park that banning of AWs was justifiable even if only made people feel safer.

Their representatives did. The issue of arming freed slaves was discussed at length in the legislative history.

because the pre-existing right was shaped by the English common law which generally forbade "dangerous and unusual" arms you have to define the arms that are protected by the Second Amendment in some way, so the courts have basically done this so far: 1. the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms; 2. but not "dangerous and unusual arms"; 3. handguns are commonly kept for lawful purposes and cannot be banned; 4. assault weapons are commonly kept for lawful purposes and can be banned; 5. there exist all sorts of limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, such as sensitive places, carry outside the home, prohibitions on felons, violent misdemeanants, domestic abusers, and those adjudicated mentally incompetent So generally speaking (with assault weapons and large-capacity magazines being an outlier) if the weapon is typically possessed for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned. It obviously matters how people use things. If everybody used their cars to drive into parades, we'd think of them not as vehicles but as weapons.

Like pretty much every constitutional issue, you can "whatabout" anything to death. But you really need to look at the nation as a whole, and the history of the weapon. That's why DC's handgun ban was struck down: because nationally, Americans overwhelmingly acquire handguns for lawful purposes.

no because they are commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens that's why you can ban brass knuckles but not handguns, irrespective of lethality

Far from it. I think vaccines are modern miracles of science.

Miller is interesting too because it is often cited as having a central holding that sawed off shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not useful in warfare. Well that's not the central holding. Is there any doubt that, if Mr. Miller had been in possession of a machine gun (indubitably useful in warfare), his conviction would still have been upheld? The question answered in Miller is whether the government may ban arms that are unusual and dangerous, i.e. that are not commonly kept for lawful purposes.

I did not move the goalposts but you're entrenched (and so am I) and I agree that this is a useless argument. Yes I am a constitutional lawyer.

The history of Miller is pretty interesting. The petitioner didn't even argue. It was a mess. But if you go back and carefully read the decision, and the legislative history from the NFA, you can see that the central theme of Heller - that firearms commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens - has always been there.

Heller deals with Miller as well as the GCA/NFA

I have done a lot of research on this subject but thanks