FireTower

FireTower , 2 days ago

Not having legal precedence is hardly a reason to dissent…

Under the Bruen test it is. Even the majority would agree with that. Thomas differed from them by stating that the laws proposed in the main opinion were not relevantly similar enough to the one before the correct.

The test wouldn’t apply to the 13th amendment because that’s a constitutional amendment, and not a law allegedly impacting a right.

FireTower , 2 days ago

I’ve found they do tend to be more blunt and straightforward. I think to understand them you have to start from the lens of his that stare decisis is a poor doctrine. Many of his dissents have such strong departures from the main opinion because of this. If you don’t presuppose things like the Wickard V Filburn case’s impact on the commerce clause dissents like Gonzalez v Raich, seem much more plausible.

FireTower , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

It was a federal public defender. He saw a route to zealously advocate for his client and he took it. It was a bit of a moonshot, but I’m glad that we have a country where public representation is willing to go as far as he did for his client. Regardless of the circumstances.

FireTower OP , 3 days ago

There’s a number of opinions and dissents he’s written that I feel like people here would be surprised to agree with him on. Like in Gonzalez v Raich which he was in favor of legalization of weed.

1/3 of the time the cases are 9-0 anyways.

FireTower , 4 days ago

Pretty solid summarization of the situation. I definitely think that Baldwin’s on site safety problems and the seemingly rushed nature of production are going to bite him.

FireTower , 4 days ago

HGR definitely didn’t do right here but a lot more went wrong. This was a perfect storm of negligence. Multiple people could have taken minor stands to have prevented this tragic tale. So many people spoke out and zero action was taken to address their concerns.

A layered safety approach is a great idea. But it only works when at least one person in a position to do so does what’s right.

FireTower , 4 days ago

Safety is the duty of every employee (and employer) on any job site. Film set, factory floor, or office. You have a duty to not unduly endangered your coworkers. If you see something dangerous at your work place speak up. Make your complaint known and make sure there’s a paper trail.

The four rules of firearm safety only fail if you break every one at once. And much like punches Hollywood is great at getting camera angles where you really can’t tell the difference with gunshots.

FireTower , 4 days ago

I feel like the habitability requirement might be governing on issues of extreme heat.

FireTower , 7 days ago

For the curious

en.m.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_U.S._state_firearms

FireTower , 6 days ago

M1 isn’t a bad pick. I feel like if the list gets filled out more the AR will become like the cardinal is for state birds.

FireTower , 5 days ago

The choice to have a gun at all actually increases your risk of being victim of a violent crime, and that’s just the odds for you. Having a gun in your house at all greatly increases the risk that you or someone in your home will die accidentally, or by suicide. Those odds are greater than those of any violent lunatic breaking into your home and murdering anyone in it.

Aside from poking fun at the notion a violent home invasion is something to contrast with violent crime, there’s a serious problem here. In the study of criminal justice (and many social sciences) it is nearly impossible in most cases to separate correlation and causation. This is due to the difficulties in setting control groups and the many possible factors that may influence these events.

A person cognisant that they are at increased risk of violent crime might feel inclined to acquire a firearm. This doesn’t necessarily mean the purchase caused the victimization. That is like saying doing chemotherapy increases your risk of dying of cancer. And someone experiencing suicidal ideation might purchase a firearm to commit the act. Putting this notion once again on its head.

FireTower , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

1. Justice Story had a better take with consideration of the historical roots of the recognition of the right:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

2. There’s other types of emergencies that were very pressing at the time. Namely attacks from the Iroquois Confederacy and the Crown of England (once the War of 1812 broke), just to limit it to the early republic period.

This 1619 type revisionism not only portrays the period in an inaccurate shade but diminishes the accomplishments of men, like Peter Salem, and ignores facts agreed upon universally by academia like that at the time of founding miltias were composed of ordinary men.

FireTower , 4 days ago

By men you mean males

Yes. When I said men I was referring to males. Gentlemen if that clarifies it further. Though there are a few accounts of women (females/ladies) who were camp followers contributing in extenuating circumstances in combat roles.

and what was the color of their skin?

Depended on the person. It was majority Caucasian men, who also made up the majority of the free male population. But as alluded to in the previous comment of mine, Freemen like Mr. Salem joined the fray. Native Americans also fought in some cases on the side of the Patriots, though they mostly sided with the British due to their strong ties to the Iroquois Confederacy.

FireTower , 7 days ago

Nothing more valuable than shares in a company in such a poor financial state that it can’t pay its own settlements.

FireTower , 8 days ago

PCs. Gaming laptop underperform for price, are larger than non gaming laptops, and generally are less serviceable & durable. Just the entire market segment lags behind.

FireTower , 9 days ago

“Supreme Court”, Guardian. It’s a proper noun.

Boy have I got some bad news

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5fc44890-9ec6-4c37-8fd1-6fcaa9b32db8.jpeg

FireTower , 8 days ago

Yes it is. Here’s what I think someone concerned with propper capitalization of SCOTUS would not be keen to hear:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5f3987d6-a9ff-4565-b044-fff9a49479d3.jpeg

FireTower , 9 days ago

The TLDR of the opinion is that they held the BATFE acted outside of statutory authority, acting as the legislature making new law with the administrative policy.

FireTower , 9 days ago

I’ve followed it and the first paragraph is spot on. But I’d argue something doesn’t have to be a firearm to be protected, see Caetano v Massachusetts. It probably would also protect other items adjacent or necessary for the intended purposes of the amendment; like some types of ammo, parts, or accessories. If bumpstocks fall into that is another question though. Reading the tea leaves it doesn’t seem like it.

But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). And, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.” -pg 19

FireTower , 9 days ago

Mock v Garland is the case you want to follow.

FireTower , 9 days ago

This case wasn’t about rights it was about administrative policy and legislation. They seemed to actually be subtlely nudging for Congress to act in the opinion.

FireTower , 9 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

In that scenario the button is the trigger. Trigger is being used not to describe a curved piece of metal you put your finger on but the input device. The oral arguments had a lot around that issue.

See the reply below

FireTower , 9 days ago

They were found to not be machine guns per the statutory definition. So they can’t arrest people for having one (unless a new law is passed). Prior to the BATFE’s policy change they didn’t ‘approve the sales’ more so they didn’t bar the sales.

FireTower , 9 days ago

You’re correct went back and reread it:

On weapons with these standard trigger mechanisms, the phrase “function of the trigger” means the physical trigger movement required to shoot the firearm. Pg. 7

Although it sounds like there maybe be edge cases where specially designed firearms are treated differently if they lack a traditional mechanism.

FireTower , 9 days ago

I think article 1 section 1 sums it up best

FireTower , 10 days ago

Settlements are always necessarily dispositive of the truth. Sometimes it makes sense to just pay a settlement fee than to go through litigation if you expect your attorney fees to be greater than the settlement cost. Also it’s not uncommon for settlements agreements to not confirm allegations so as to not benefit future cases against the defendant.

FireTower , 10 days ago

That’s a really big reduction. Won’t be over soon but it sounds like they’re getting on the right path economically.

FireTower , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Bikes are a scam perpetuated by big tire. Run at full speed for all of your travel.

Pros:

• Green (non industrial footprint)
• No bike to get stolen
• Harkens back to primitive man chasing gazelles
• Fantastic for heart health
• Just as fast as biking if you run as fast as you bike
• No need for safety equipment (raw)

Cons:

• Others will be intimidated by your presence
• May require barge poll to fend off potential suitors

FireTower OP , 10 days ago

It’ll be a hard time finding another plaintiff with propper standing in a case on this question, given the nature of the medicine.

Even if they were to get standing, saying the government not restricting something that may cause harm is actionable seems like a tough position to attend. Especially given this line in the opinion:

Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

FireTower , 10 days ago

Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

Pg 3 of the opinion

No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don’t stop a potential bad thing from happening.

FireTower , 10 days ago

Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

Pg 3 of the opinion is pretty clear that launching a case against the government for not banning something will just result in your case being DOA. Yes its technically a standing issue, but they’ve essentially ruled that you can’t have standing to sue under this situation. Effectively ruling on the merits.

It didn’t protect access in the sense that it prevented legislation restricting it but it did prevent unmerited lawsuits seeking to prevent its national sale.

FireTower , 11 days ago

This model just came out recently. I wouldn’t pass judgement on them for that.

FireTower OP , 11 days ago

If your going off of a progressive-conservative scale rather than a living constitutionalist vs originalist one Id probably peg him more conservative than Roberts and Gorsuch, but less than Alito and Thomas.

That said most of the Scotus cases are over boring things that only lawyers care about, with questions like what a navigable river is or the validity of contracts. And ~30% of the time it’s a 9-0. There’s probably a few Thomas and Alito opinions you might find yourself getting behind, maybe not the hot button ones but the boring ones.

FireTower OP , 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

He also had a lot of rulings that didn’t necessarily fit his personal opinions due to his originalist interpretation style. I know he had said that the death penalty is constitutional and stupid.

FireTower , 11 days ago

The court seems to feel that the events were bad but there are issues proving the plaintiff was directly harmed and the legal theory of nuisance here seem like a stretch.

But if they won, best case scenario they’d make out with cash damages and the vindication of having a judge saying the government was wrong.

FireTower , 16 days ago

This was a standard disclosure. Feeling ‘the heat’ has nothing to do with it. Jackson got 1.2k in flowers from Opera. Appointed officials shouldn’t be able to accept any form of donations above a very minor amount like $20.

youtu.be/R4bw88-tzSg

FireTower , 17 days ago

youtu.be/kMKvxJ-Js3A

FireTower , 18 days ago

Agreed. This story is essentially “Guy who was relevant years ago says ‘Ur Gay’ to someone on Internet”. Which while disagreeable isn’t something I’d expect people rushing to the presses about.

FireTower , 19 days ago

Because that money belongs to someone, presumably the party that was defrauded.

FireTower , 23 days ago

Tldr on the topic from another article I read:

Instead, the bill requires only the Department of Education, which is in charge of federal grants for financial aid and funding of schools, to consider the definition of antisemitism when investigating programs that receive federal funding. Essentially, it gives the Education Department the ability to pull funding if it finds discrimination “based on race, color, or national origin,” something known as a Title VI investigation.

snopes.com/…/antisemitism-awareness-act-explain/

The definition used is an 11 point one explained in the above article. The gripes are basically that the definition is broad enough to include what many feel should be protected speech and this would curtail criticism of Israel.

FireTower , 23 days ago

Definitely imo not better than LiS 1 but wasn’t terrible. If you liked LiS and are looking for something else to play I’d give it a shot.

FireTower , 23 days ago

Controversial take but having the industry fixed at $60 only will increasingly encourage predatory models as inflation continues. Price should be reflective of the quality and content of a product, not a fixed standard.

FireTower , 24 days ago

Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS?

Just your average joe who is able to read a few paragraphs. The federal government doesn’t have any power not explicitly granted to them.

What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now.

It not a bluff it’s an important case. They should write an actually well founded opinion that doesn’t set up terrible case law for future generations.

Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

You’re operating under the presuppositions that it does have absolute immunity and I don’t believe he does. As I said, the case hasn’t had an opinion. And I didn’t mention it previously but the state judge thing you’d mentioned earlier is also not in the power of the president.

constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

Article 2 is the bit to read.

FireTower , 23 days ago

I wasn’t taking that personally, my point was that in America the sovereign power rests in the people (vs England in the crown). We hold the authority under which the government exists.