Skip to main content

Sometimes a dog that doesn't bark bears important news. Drake v. Jerejian offered the Supreme Court its fourth opportunity in a year to decide whether states must allow civilians to carry handguns in public.

Despite having dozens of opportunities in the six years since its decision in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court has not extended the Second Amendment right beyond allowing an operable handgun for self defense in one's home. The Court is nearing the end of their term and there are no other petitions pending that would afford them an opportunity to address the issue.

When SCOTUS announced today that they will not hear Drake's appeal they also silently communicated something else. Appeals of any similar cases coming up through the lower courts will not even be considered until some time this fall. Any opinion on the right to carry a gun in public will not be issued any time before spring 2015, at the earliest.

The case is important.

It is so important that the Firearms Law and Policy group has published three diaries about the case in the past seven days, here, here, and here

The petitioners were all law abiding gun owners seeking a permit to carry a gun in public. New Jersey requires applicants to prove they have a good reason above and beyond the general public, why they should be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense.

[From the petition] Justifiable need means the "urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."
This diary will explain why this news about a single, very specific New Jersey gun law has national implications. Please join me below the fold.

The case was an opportunity for SCOTUS to consider whether the Second Amendment protects armed self-defense in public.

The petitioners wanted the Supreme Court to address two questions.

1. Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.

2. Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.

 - Petition - Drake v Jerejian

If they had decided to review this case, it would have become the third seminal gun right's case, the first since Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). Generally speaking, the Second Amendment right articulated in Heller relies on the fact that the public has no right to be present in someone else's home. Out in public unarmed people have just as much right to exist as people with a gun do. There is no remedy in court when a mistaken gun owner fatally shoots someone. It is far from certain if, how and when they will expand gun rights into the public sphere.

The decision to deny the appeal outright, without even hearing oral arguments, has far-reaching implications across the country. There are several similar cases coming up through the lower courts that would have been impacted if SCOTUS had accepted the appeal.

National Implications

  • The Supreme Court will not consider any other appeals like this until fall 2014 or spring 2015.
  • The Supreme Court will not issue an opinion on public RKBA until spring 2015, at the earliest.
  • NJ, MD, CA, and HI have similarly strict requirements for concealed carry permits. Washington DC is the only jurisdiction that has a more restrictive law. With SCOTUS taking a pass, lower courts considering similar laws may be less likely to strike them down.
  • State Courts will continue to have discretion to decide cases according to their own  application of Heller and their state constitution.
  • Federal Courts will continue to have discretion/freedom to decide cases according to each Court's interpretation of Heller.

Summary

In this diary I explained why this SCOTUS decision, to let the 4th Circuit's decision stand, was a very important one. Denial of the appeal means the case has reached a dead end for Drake et al. Although the case challenged a very small part of state law in New Jersey, applicable only within the state of New Jersey, the silence of the Court speaks loudly across the rest of the country.


Further Reading




Intro to Drake v Jerejian - SCOTUS decision on appeal postponed again
    -  Introduced the parties and the constitutional questions as viewed by the petitioner's counsel, Alan Gura, by LilithGardener

Is SCOTUS Ready to Rule on Carrying Guns in Public?
   - Introduced the history of the case, the specific NJ law being challenged, and arguments from both sides, by TRPChicago

SCOTUS declines to review Drake v. Jerejian, the NJ case that limits gun carry permits
    - Announces the news, comments discuss various aspects, TRP Chicago

Concealed Carry Law Petitions SCOTUS - Woollard v Gallagher, by LilithGardener
    - A long diary covering Maryland's "good cause" requirement, the facts of the case and the 2-step legal analysis used by the 4th Circuit to uphold the law.

What is Reciprocity - Introduction to Concealed Carry Weapons Law
    - Includes a primer on concealed carry permit laws across the nation, by LilithGardener

Sponsored by the Firearms Law and Policy Group


The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you would like to write about firearms law please send us a Kosmail.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.


6:51 PM PT:


Please be careful reading as some text may have shifted. I edited the diary in more than one place. I added the following to the Introduction. The first paragraph below this one was moved up from below the fold. The definition of justifiable need is from the petition.

The petitioners were all law abiding gun owners seeking a permit to carry a gun in public. New Jersey requires applicants to prove they have a good reason above and beyond the general public, why they should be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense in public.

[Edited @6:41 to add NJ's definition of "good cause." From the petition] Justifiable need means the "urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."

I also edited the bullet points at the end.

Tue May 06, 2014 at  9:09 AM PT: At the request of a reader, I added a summary paragraph and move the further reading above the group template.





Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 06:03 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for understanding breaking news (99+ / 0-)

    Links to gun law and policy news can be posted as replies to the tip jar.

    Firearms Law and Policy NEWSWIRE

    We are beginning a newswire service covering gun law and policy news from all over the country. These reports will be as brief as a few sentences or as large as a full diary. They may include your home state perspective or simply report on current news. We are getting organized and we welcome your input. Please feel free to post links with your comments and/or send a message to the group. The Managing Editor is We Shall Overcome.

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 05:13:31 PM PDT

  •  Research service, requests, and questions (27+ / 0-)

    When we formed last summer imagined ourselves forming a study group, the kind that might meet in the back room of a library once a week to help each other figure things out.

    Replies to this comment is the best place to post a request that we cover a particular topic, general questions for the editors, or even specific research requests and questions on topics we have covered.

    Such as, I'm new here. Can you help me find a diary that explains what concealed carry means? or Have you written a diary on Masciandaro v US?

    Gun law is vast and complex and often overwhelming. Don't be shy about getting help to start wherever you are. If you have a question it's likely that other readers do too.

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 05:19:36 PM PDT

  •  Could You Explain What This Means? (13+ / 0-)
    There is no remedy in court when a mistaken gun owner fatally shoots someone.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon May 05, 2014 at 06:13:14 PM PDT

  •  So does this mean (7+ / 0-)

    Illinois can challenge the ruling that the state must allow concealed carry?

  •  What was the decision of the court of appeals (7+ / 0-)

    below?  My understanding is that if the Supreme Court denies cert that the lower court ruling stands

    •  That is correct. (5+ / 0-)

      The decision of the Court of Appeals or state supreme court is good law and is binding precedent for the state or appellate circuit (subject, of course, to the inferioir court's own rules about reversing precedent).

    •  Both the District Court and Appeals Court (10+ / 0-)

      upheld the law.

      Group member JR wrote this in our Kosmail about the case.

      Something else to consider: the lower court in this case, according to the Brief in Opposition, operated under the assumption that the right announced in Heller actually would apply outside the home, but that the law in this case was a regulation of that right within the bounds of what was permissible for the state to undertake.

      Really, what NJ argued - and what I think swayed the Court - is that the lower court decision doesn't conflict with Heller or McDonald, and therefore there isn't a sufficient reason to take it up on review.

      Special thanks to JR, he was my last minute editor tonight.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:18:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Constitutional Carry". The subject that never (12+ / 0-)

    really gets mentioned by either "RKBA" or "Firearms Law and Policy".

    The reason why there is even a sembalance of a "Right to Privacy" in the U.S. (what, when I was child in the fifties, was called The Primary Right of Americans, and The Strongest Right) is because the Scotus, in Loving, Griswald, and Roe created it from The Constitution. Meaning that we do have (at least for now), "a Constitutional Right of Privacy".

    So, if you want "Constitutional Carry", put your money where your mouth is. Leave out Heller (as precdent), leave out Amendment 2 (as the operative authority), get down and dirty and slug it out on the true battle field of "Fundamental Human Rights". Demand a pronouncement that everyone, everywhere is entitled to go all Georgia (and, actually, more) just because it's truly a fundamental aspect of human existence.

    As far as FLAP, yeah parse the fine details, and nitpick, but at least once in a while prominently feature the fact that the gunnuts are. at best, going "two steps forwards and one step backwards" on what is destined to prove to be an unsurmountably long journey.

    In plain english for RKBA, on a planetary basis, you're the 1%.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Mon May 05, 2014 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

    •  Gun-nuts recognize only one "right": an (18+ / 0-)

      absolute right to possess and use guns, which negates all other rights, including others' "right" to life.

      And that is why their rationales are the rationales of the criminal.

      To the contrary, our system of laws is based upon a balancing of rights.  Any "right" to possess guns is balanced against others' rights not to be adversely affected by the exercise of that right.

      And, of course, the "absolute" right asserted by gun-nuts is blatantly bogus: if a person possesses -- owns a gun legally, and uses it to rob a bank, and then is arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison, he will not be allowed to take his legally owned gun to prison with him.

      It only takes one exception to an "absolute" to demolish the "absolute".  It's long past due that gun-nuts stopped preaching and started thinking -- beginning with LaPierre's deranged assertion that the false Second Amendment "right" to possess guns is absolute.  There are only absolutes to fanatics; and fanatics are by definition unbalanced -- and not reasonably competent to possess guns.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:26:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've thought... (6+ / 0-)

        about this for me personally.  I don't think the right to self defense is absolute.  If that right isn't absolute, then gun rights aren't absolute.

        Of course the obvious example is the military.  Your right to defend your life is subordinate to defending the nation.  I can come up with an example in civilian life too.

        For instance, if you are attacked while at a school play, do you have the right to defend your life with a gun if small children will almost certainly be killed?  I think not.  

        •  Public safety trumps individual right. (6+ / 0-)

          It's elemental:

          A society's first priority is to survive and perpetuate itself.  It will run over any individual who stands in the way of that.

          That rights and their exercise have limits is symbolized in a building ubiquitous to civil societies:

          made of concrete, with bars on the windows, locks on the outside of its doors, and called "prison".

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:14:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't it the same as freedom of speech? (5+ / 0-)

          You have the right to speak freely about whatever you want, except you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire?

          You can carry your gun at home, but the rights of others outweigh your rights when it comes to guns out in the real world, away from your home.

          I reject your reality and substitute my own - Adam Savage

          by woolibaar on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:24:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One often sees the gun-fanners refer to their (3+ / 0-)

          "God-given" right to pack a gun 24/7, that self-defense is a "God-given" right, and that defending oneself against a tyrannical government is also a "God-given" right.

          Along with that you'll usually see the following Thomas Jefferson quote:

          "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land."
          Apparently "own land" in their mind is all of America™ and not, you know, just their farm or front yard or whatever Jefferson was probably referring to at the time.

          Similarly, "justifiable need" to them is "anywhere and everywhere those God-given Freedoms might be somehow negatively impacted".

          Everyone else be damned.

           

          Ain't no such things as halfway crooks.

          by here4tehbeer on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:45:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the mini-tutorial on constitutional law (5+ / 0-)

      Well said, oldpotsmuggler. LOL

      Constitutional carry is pretty far down on my list. It may have worked in Vermont for 300 years, But with an emerging and very serious Heroin problem I think there is no telling whether it will last, even there.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:28:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Was incorporation under Due Process a mistake? (4+ / 0-)

      Personally, I think it was a mistake to incorporate the 2A under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Would have been more robust if it was incorporated under the Privileges and Immunities clause.

      The gun libertarians use "may issue" and "shall issue" to disparage state permit laws. May Issue is Due Process, isn't it? As long as the criteria are not arbitrary and capricious and there is an appeals process that gets heard by a County Judge, isn't that Due Process?

      Caveat - I am not a lawyer so if any of you suspect I pulled that right out of my axx you might be right.


      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:30:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I really like... (5+ / 0-)

      your statement

      In plain english for RKBA, on a planetary basis, you're the 1%.
      It sort of puts things in perspective as to where we are on the bell shaped curve regarding guns in this country.
    •  Well... (8+ / 0-)

      I don't want constitutional carry.  After the little fiasco in Bunkerville, I am thinking that open carry is not a good idea either.  It's only purpose is to intimidate, at least it seems so to me.  

      •  Well at least with open.... (3+ / 0-)

        ...carry you know who the gun carriers are.  If I had to choose I would rank open carry above concealed carry but  both below no carry of handguns or hunting guns when not hunting.  And transportation of guns from hunting or sporting events has to be unloaded and well secured.  Also, I see different regulations for different areas, unlike many of the RKBA crowd.  Guns in rural areas can, and probably should be, regulated less than in densely populated areas.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:19:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But I... (3+ / 0-)

          really don't like the "in your face" aspect of open carry.  With concealed carry, the person is approaching me as an equal; not so much with open carry.

          Stupid...it's the new smart for right wingers.

          by StevenD56 on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:13:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yea but with concealed carry.... (3+ / 0-)

            ...they can bring them into places, like my home, where I don't want them.  And I don't trust them to abide by signage saying they are not wanted or laws that say the same.  And I resent that I have to proactively post signs on my property saying I don't want guns where any reasonable person would say WTF do you need a gun there for.

            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

            by delver rootnose on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:19:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  True. If we were talking about some remote rural (3+ / 0-)

            area where people felt it necessary to carry a firearm to protect against rampaging grizzlies or wolf packs, okay.
               But a gang of armed yahoos strutting around cities and into shopping malls showing off their AR-15s is a substantial assault on the right of people to go about their business without fear.

            •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpotsmuggler, enhydra lutris

              There is no 2A right to create a menace with a gun.

              Heller didn't declare the 2A give anyone the right to carry any gun for any old arbitrary reason. Gun owners can't have it two ways. if a displayed gun is effective in "defensive gun use" that's because the mere sight of a gun can invoke a fear of death.

              Heller, described a right to keep and bear arms in case of lawful confrontation.

              Disturbing the peace is not lawful confrontation.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:38:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Choose between two devils? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, oldpotsmuggler

          In a cynical way, I vote for open carry. The OC person looks foolish in a civilized setting, and his constant gun fetish is on display. IMHO, he is wearing a sign saying "Hey look, something's wrong with me!"

          My inner thoughts and feelings have evolved to consider concealed carry as hidden (or deceitful, if you will) open carry.

          SHIP OF FOOLS. Let the fools look foolish. Then let the public react at the level of state voting.

          ************

          LILITH GARDENER IS A ROCK STAR.

          _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

          by reasonablegunsplz on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:05:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The preference for concealed carry is a (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpotsmuggler, enhydra lutris

            modern aspect of gun culture.

            In the last quarte of the 19th century, problems from concealed carry had reached such a level that over a generation a dozen states adopted or amended their constitutions specifically excluding concealed carry.

            Colorado adopted the right to arms in their state constitution in 1876.

            The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

            State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, Eugene Volokh, 11 Texas Rev. of Law & Politics 191, 2006.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:46:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not really (0+ / 0-)
          Well with open carry you know who the gun carriers are.  
          Not really. You'll only know where all the openly carried guns are. There is no reason to assume that someone with a pistol on their hip doesn't also have an ankle holster.

          There is no reason to think that a woman, wearing a dress, and carrying a rifle doesn't also have a derringer in a holster on her thigh.

          That said, I'm torn. I prefer concealed carry, partly because I just don't want to see guns in public other than LEOs. I don't want guns to become a status symbol, an accessory, something to casually worn, or casually displayed. A deadly weapon is a serious item, the right to carry one in public should come with heightened responsibility to avoid disturbing the peace.

          There is no 2A right to create a menace with a gun.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:35:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Get public carry going on in some place where (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            a massacre starts, and you are guaranteed that SWAT is simply going to "neutralize" every conceivable threat, no questions asked. This has never really happened yet, but we certainly seem to be headed for exactly that sort of train wreck.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:03:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well if the have an ankle holster.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...then the are concealed carring even if they are also open carring.  And if concealed carry is illegal they would be in violation regardless of their open carry status.

            If I have to tolerate guns amoung us then I want to see where they are at all times.

            And if they become fashion accessories then I can mock them even more.  And know to stay away from someone so venal as to consider a gun a fashion statement.

            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

            by delver rootnose on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:04:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:46:53 PM PDT

  •  Thanks, Lilith. This diary answered a lot of (3+ / 0-)

    questions I had after reading some of the other diaries - ie, what does this mean for public carry. We can't know for sure, but it seems if the court wanted to decide the issue, they have had plenty of chances to do so - so why wouldn't they take one of these cases and decide for public carry? Because they feel the cases would not support the concept well enough? Or, are they looking for a good case to use to strike down the concept of public carry? I hope the latter. If that were to happen - would everyone who has a permit to public carry (concealed or open) no longer have that right?

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:15:24 PM PDT

    •  SCOTUS probably won't strike down a public (4+ / 0-)

      carry permit law and declare there is no right to carry a gun for self-defense in public. But I think it's very possible that very strict public carry  continue to be upheld as long as a few criteria are met:

      1. the criteria must be clear to citizens so they can tell for themselves if they have a realistic chance of being approved.

      2. the criteria have a reasonable justification in terms of public safety and preventing crime.

      3. the process of reviewing applications does not have room for corruption in the form of "waivers," such that only the wealthy or politically connected are approved.

      4. anyone who is denied a permit can appeal through an administrative process that involves a hearing in front of a County Judge or a state level irearms Court.

      5. the fees are reasonably affordable for most people.

      And you're welcome. Even the case is now at a dead end for Drake, I hope to write more diaries breaking down some of the many interesting aspects.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:53:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt.. (4+ / 0-)

      the court will do anything to restrict the states from allowing concealed carry. Isn't the question at issue "how restrictive may the states be"?

  •  The right to steel penises shall not be... (0+ / 0-)

    I love it when these insecure wanabees lose, especially to their own side.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:00:25 PM PDT

    •  Welcome to Firearms Law and Policy group (4+ / 0-)

      Hi Kovie, Thanks for stopping by. Schadenfreude may be sweet but it doesn't last. This diary is about a very specific gun law and a very important SCOTUS decision. Do you have any thoughts about them?

      FWIW - Could we leave discussion of sexual inuendos in gun culture a different day and some one else's diary, an open thread or author who might welcome that style? Thanks.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 10:12:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see this as a legal and cultural issue (5+ / 0-)

        And the cultural aspect absolutely has something to do with male insecurity, which clearly has a sexual component. It's impossible to separate the two.

        Come on, are we really still this prudish that we can't discuss the obvious?

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:03:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're on to something, but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          not too sure of the sexual connotation.

          What the avid gun idiots have in common is some intrinsic  need for more power. The weapon is a force multiplier, and they feel a compelling need for one. Most def.

          I relate to a lack of courage here. I see a culture of fear among supposedly manly men.

          Kovie, I am saying what you are, I think, but my internal system happens to draw no connection to sexual organs.

          But stick around please, to keep Lilith in her place (as if such a thing could be possible)...

          _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

          by reasonablegunsplz on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:42:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Freud explained that, I think (0+ / 0-)

            Sex is about way more than just sex, meaning sexual gratification (and procreation). In fact it's usually not about sex, but power (e.g. rape). It's in our genes, actually, this whole power = sexual potency thing, as watching any nature show tells you with the intense competition among males to mate, the actual culmination taking but a moment or two. Some of us have figured out ways to get past that, but not all of us can be progressive Democrats.

            My point is that it's not really about sex or sex organs, but about what they represent to many extreme gun fetishists, power, dominance, security, validation, etc. Not to mainstream gun owners and users, but to these types who represent the greatest surge in gun ownership and advocacy over the past few decades. To them, it's not about guns as utilitarian devices and cultural relics of a bygone time, but guns as symbols and stand-ins for what they most crave and feel that they lack, power and control, which is inextricably tied to sex in ways that go way beyond sex itself.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:13:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Would you skip the meta, please? (0+ / 0-)
          Come on, are we really still this prudish that we can't discuss the obvious?
          There are important cultural memes to explore. There is a time and place for ridicule. Some stupid shit deserves to be mocked into oblivion. Just not in this diary, please. Your first comment was totally off topic, and it was pure flame bait. Your last sentence is lame, pure meta, and a subtle attempt to provoke a meta fight. No thanks.

          I'm sure you have more to say, but the sexualization of guns is not on the menu in this diary, OK?

          This is a group diary. You're a guest here and I am the host of this party. If you sincerely want to discuss your concerns about my prudishness please send me a Kosmail. Not here. Not in this diary, please.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:13:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is why we lose (0+ / 0-)

            By compartmentalizing issues into neat little tidy packages that conform to the way we prefer to look at the world rather than how it actually is. To deny the emotional, cultural (which includes the sexual) and ideological aspects of such issues and try to see them purely in a formalistic and legalistic light is to not be serious about winning on these issues. Meta IS part of the solution.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:59:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you - but you are seriously (0+ / 0-)

              out of place with this concept in this diary. It has absolutely fuck all to do with this diary. Knock it the fuck off. Take your threadjacking ass out of my living room.

              Three tries and you aren't persuaded.

              I struck out with you.

              Good bye.

              {shrink} is my friend.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:45:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  HRable comment for mental illness accusations (0+ / 0-)

                Only the rules preclude me from doing so.

                "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                by kovie on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:29:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No that's a reference to the shrink funtion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  at the bottom of the diary. It's at the top of the comment section. {shrink} means that I won't bother to read your comments because I won't even see them.

                  It's not a reference to mental illness or to the cultural reference to a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

                  Are you happy now, kovie? You obviously wanted negative attention today and for god know what reason you picked a diary about the Supreme Court to vent your spleen. You refused to stop until you proved to me and all our readers that your obsession with sex today could be used to disrupt my fine diary.

                  Got it?

                  Stop trolling my diary.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:31:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Responding to your comments is trolling? (0+ / 0-)

                    Nuz 2 me.

                    I think that at this point you're self-hijacking with your obsession with a couple of snarky comments of mine. Relax. We're all on the same side.

                    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                    by kovie on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:36:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You know, you're right. Absolutely right. (0+ / 0-)

                      You might be right.

                      I obviously needed to be reminded how easily it is to inadvertently enable a troll. My mistake began here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      7 comments and not a hint of any evidence that you read the diary, care about the topic of the diary, or have anything thoughtful, interesting, or even funny to say about the topic of the diary.

                      My mistake.

                      Thank you. This thread can serve as a teaching example of how easily it is to disrupt a diary by responding to a troll. That's your contribution here, kovie. Please proceed.

                      What's that saying? When people show you who they are, believe them. The first time.

                      Lesson learned.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:09:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You don't get to decide what's funny or not (0+ / 0-)

                        And I continue to be amazed at the degree to which you've overreacted to a single offhand snarky comment of the sort you know I make all the time (and that you basically agreed with!), only it was in your diary, which of course makes it literally the worst comment ever in the history of ever.

                        Equally amazed that in all our "exchanges", your total output has easily outpaced mine by several degrees.

                        This isn't about my comment, obviously.

                        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                        by kovie on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:41:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  ^^^This educational example gets better and better (0+ / 0-)

                        The game is all about proving no one can make him...

                        See dear readers? The only way to win is not to play.

                        My mistake was way up thread. I took the bait. I'm embarrassed by this and hope I've salvaged something educational out of it.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:14:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Sexualization of guns in marketing and pop (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie

          culture is an incredibly important topic and part of the ugly underbelly of American Gun Culture.

          Kovie, if you would write a diary about it, such as a cultural critique of Bushmaster's obviously successful ad campaign featuring and AR-15 and "Your mancard has been reissued" I'd happily participate in the discussion. Hell, FLAP might even republish it.

          I'd love if someone would build a diary around this Gawker article, Your Mancard Has Been Revoked. I'd love it to see excellent writers like yourself take up the issue of gun marketing to children and why it should be regulated the same way cigarette advertising to children.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:17:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is what I was talking about (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            We have a 5 ultra-con SCOTUS to a large extent due to the right's successful effort to culturalize and emotionalize issues that should have remained within the legal and public interest sphere, where they belong.

            The constitution and public safety needs absolutely support demonstrably prudent gun control, which is the only kind that most of us are talking about, slippery slope arguments be damned because they only apply when the initial justification is itself slippery, which this ain't.

            Therefore, the right has had to appeal to emotion, prejudice and, yes, male insecurity, based to a large extent on, yes, their members.

            As for diaries, as you probably know I'm more of a comment person, but you do have a valid point here. I'll think about it.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:05:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, some of your comments could be expanded (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kovie

              into a diary. The topic is vast and important.

              I encourage all our new authors to join the New diarist group where they have published excellent tutorials and will help new authors polish their work.

              The way it works is you join. When you have a draft ready, you submit it the New Diarist group. Editors there, who love to teach, help you with formatting, and suggest what works and how to make it better, where to put links, etc. When you're finished, you delete from their group queue and publish to on your own or to one of your other groups.

              And if you wan help you're welcome to join us. FLAP editors help people develop and focus their ideas and wrestle them into html. We encourage all authors to write from their own point of view. We give frank feedback about what works, what's gratuitously inflammatory and what sucks. We help to vet/find the best sources.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:17:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Republished... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, i saw an old tree today

      to GunPorn.

      The right to steel penises
  •  This pisses me off even more.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo, ranger995

    ....that Lisa Madigan or gov. Quinn didn't appeal.  They just assumed defeat and caved to the gun nuts.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Mon May 05, 2014 at 11:57:46 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site