Jump to content

Cal Palmer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cal Palmer last won the day on May 15

Cal Palmer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Cal Palmer

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

433 profile views
  1. Cal Palmer

    I'm Back

    I’m here
  2. Cal Palmer

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    Anyone who doesn’t want to have their mind changed isn’t going to. As pointed out by another person, the James Madison anecdote could just easily be used as evidence for the opposite point of view (why did they need permission from Madison?). I’ll continue to stand with the overwhelming evidence of case law, state and federal legislative history, etc., and agree to disagree.
  3. Cal Palmer

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    As stated in the article you are disregarding, the overwhelming common usage of the phrase “bear arms” at the time was related to military service, not private ownership/use apart from it. So it would be a bit hard for me to find a handy quote from the Founding Fathers opposing the modern hackneyed interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means. Additionally, as the article stated (along with countless others that have citations- remember the line about law review articles, for example), firearm regulations and restrictions were common throughout the 1800s (when Founding Fathers would have been alive to object). Here’s some additional support: http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-5-gun-laws-that-the-founding-fathers-supported-2017-10
  4. Cal Palmer

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    This article addresses some of this better than I can without droning on and on: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856?o=0 One thing I would add is that when the Supreme Court finally recognized an individual right to own guns independent of militia service in 2008, the author of that decision (Scalia) made clear that it did not mean that the federal government could not regulate the ownership, sale, etc. of guns. In other words, over the entire history of US jurisprudence, it has never been held that there is an absolute right to own arms independent of militia service.
  5. Cal Palmer

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    I’m not arguing against private ownership of guns, for cripe’s sake. You guys all have your pat responses at the ready, and don’t fully engage with the arguments being made. What I DID say is that the idea that private arms ownership should be completely unregulated and unlimited is not consistent with our legislative and judicial history or with how we interpret our other fundamental rights, such as speech.
  6. Cal Palmer

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    Logical fallacy according to you. I would say an AR-15 with a bump stock is a pretty extreme example, and yet it remains perfectly legal in private hands, in some cases without a background check.
  7. Cal Palmer

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    The “fire in a crowded theater” argument is pretty sound, in my opinion. The right to free speech in the 1st amendment is pretty unequivocal, but there are exceptions that have been created in the law for perfectly valid reasons (slander is another example), and these do not negatively impact free speech in any significant way. Clearly the right to free speech doesn’t just involve saying whatever words you like, but the specific context and meaning; nevertheless, these restrictions stand, for good reasons. I fully agree with the right of citizens to bear arms, and as the amendment provides, if a state maintains a militia or decides to in the future, they can call up citizens with proper firearm training/experience to join. (A couple of asides: first, a militia in this context is decidedly not a bunch of survivalist idiots shooting tin cans on the weekend and plotting the overthrow of the “fedrul guvmint”. In fact, even when organized by the states, Art 1 Sec 8 gives the federal government the right to suppress rebellions (See: U.S. Civil War). Second, most of the Supreme Court cases dealing with the 2nd amendment actually ruled against conscientious objectors who refused state militia service. If state militia service were to make a comeback, I would definitely want to see conscientious objectors get more respect.) The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. U.S. that the federal government could restrict certain arms (in this case, sawed-off shotguns) that were deemed not suitable for militia service. It’s arguable that AR-15s would be suitable (bump stocks less so), but I think it’s fairly clear that there are arms that do not belong in private hands. Would strong 2nd amendment advocates be ok with nuclear weapons in private hands? Or is it ok only if it looks like a gun? Because clearly the technology of guns has changed. The Las Vegas shooter was able to create such carnage in such a short amount of time that would have been unimaginable with the firearms available in the 1790s. I don’t believe the 2nd amendment disallows certain arms being restricted (fully automatic rifles are already banned, of course. Again, is that a violation of the 2nd amendment?), and certainly wouldn’t disallow universal background checks or other regulations that would be consistent with organizing a state militia.