Posted on 06/26/2017 6:58:58 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Where do you get that? Gorsuch was one of only 2 on the side of keeping our gun rights....Gorsuch and Thomas.
ROTFL.
From the dissent:
“[A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a result, ordinary, “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008), may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.
So is the author admitting that everyone fears for their safety in San Diego?
How does Heller sustain this finding?
I don't read Thomas's dissent for that proposition at all.
No, no. That was quoted from the opinion being appealed as I read it. It seemed to say that fearing for your safety in public in San Diego made you just like everyone else.
Got it. I read the 9th circuit opinion as describing three classes of person. One class is the group of people able to show a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense.
Another group is a typical citizen fearing for his personal safety.
Another group is "mainstream," whatever the heck that is, I suppose "not fearing for personal safety."
The 9th Circuit says those last two categories as indistinguishable. They are, when the distinguishing quality being examined is "particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence." Whether or not a person fears for their safety isn't even a factor to be considered. It could be that everybody is afraid, or nobody is afraid. The point the 9th Circuit is making is that a generalized "fear" for personal safety (I view this as general prudence, without fear) is insufficient justification for bearing arms.
As if bearing arms requires any justification to the government.
As I read further, Thomas comments on how the 9th purposely ignored the broad issue of being unable to carry arms in any fashion to focus on concealed carry in particular to thereby reach the conclusion they wanted to reach. A broader reading would almost certainly have forced an opposite conclusion he said. Disingenuous and they richly deserve a good slap down. They won’t get it yet it seems.
If you want to be lazy; that’s fine but don’t try to turn this back around on me. I’m not the one who posted a half effort article. Nuff said. Learn. Don’t learn. It’s all the same to me.
I did all the work to break Supreme Court decisions within minutes - one after the other this morning.
You spent your time whining and complaining that it wasn’t spoon-fed to you.
You actually had to (shudder) locate and click a very scary link.
Suck it up buttercup or post your own breaking news.
No diaper changes either.
Wow! Lookee here folks; we have our very own snowflake!! Stay in your safe place and work on putting a layer or two on your paper thin skin.
Sure buttercup.
Au contraire, mon freep. If an excerpt is so brief as to leave one in mystery as to the gist of the article, then it acts as 'bait' upon the reader, and prompts them to click through to the full article.
A proper excerpt contains enough basic information for the reader to understand the central thrust of the story, and thus spurs discussion. The beauty is that those who want more details, can always click through to read the whole piece.
This is your opinion. You are entitled to it.
In this instance, it was simply a notification of a breaking Supreme Court decision, with a link if you wanted additional details.
Well, cheers you too, mate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.