Marswolf

My first backpacking trip ever was in 1967 to LeConte. Back in those days you could pitch a tent in the clearing on the mountain. I don't think they let you do that these days. Bear got the food. and we slept in a dog tent my neighbor had. Went in on the Boulevard Trail and out the next day on Alum Cave Bluffs Trail. That was the start of many trips in the Smokies, AT and other areas.

Ooooo. Don't tell my Australian friend that! I think he'd rather drink piss.

Oh, this decision is just the can opener on a gigantic can of worms - or maybe slugs. Let us hope that the courts understand and rule that we all have a right to protect ourselves from those who might wish to prey on us. Therefore, we have a right to possess and use all of the weapons that these thugs might use against us. There is a long way to go folks, but this decision goes a long way to prevent the idiotic British and Canadian gun grabbing scenario in this country. I have new respect for the Founding Fathers.

Offhand, without seeing the text of the legislation, that sounds pretty sensible. I can stand not going to Illinois and Wisconsin.

I really expected 6-3. 5-4 is scary. Some of the justices apparently have no concept of history and do see themselves as ultimate legislators.

I haven't hiked the Smokies in some time. I'll have to get back to that. Congratulations on the weight loss. That's fantastic.

And now the politicians chime in. From MSNBC:

CNN's take on the decision. I'll ignore the airhead comments from the Va Tech student.

At least until a new Justice is appointed by a gun hater and the matter is revisited in a new case. But with case law, that will be more difficult to do. 5-4 is far too close to say the individual right question is settled forever.

.....

Some more quotes:

What excites me is that the Court specifically says that we have a right to possess arms for self defense.

From SCOTUSblog:

The Devil is in the details. I'm not expecting much.

I was hoping for better than 5-4, but you take what you can get.

Now to wait for the details.

We already have a lot of restrictions on 2A because of technology. Now we are down to restrictions that will prevent us from protecting ourselves from criminals. That's just dumb.

Actually, I like the beer with lemon and salt. First beer I had like that was in the restaurant of the Mexican Pavilion at the 1982 World's Fain in Knoxville. But the limes were on sale. When I lived in Raleigh, back in the 70s, My friend Jack Daniels (yes that was his real name) and I got a gallon of moonshine and big bottle of tequila. We alternated beverage shots until we passed out. I couldn't drink tequila for years after that.

Yeah Mark. I may know him, but we haven't exchanged real names. Notice his screen name? He's a cop with a sense of humor.

Now you just need a P3AT for the back pocket BUG.

I'm going by the Gun Tests article.

Well, as I said, I've just never heard of the guy but looking at his stuff on the Internet makes him look over the top. He may be a great guy and a very good instructor but the hype turns me off. I'd much rather hear someone say that they have been to his classes and learned x,y, and z that they never heard another trainer talk about. I know training is a business and you have to advertise yourself.. But it's sort of like in the field of wound ballistics. Who would you believe if your life is on the line. Marty Fackler or Marshall & Sanow? Dedicated science or hype? Marshall & Sanow wrote a book, but it's pretty much useless. It has padded data and the "analysis" is a joke. They crossed that fine line to sell their book but a lot of people still quote their data and conclusions. And yes, I'd rather train with someone who has been shot at and acquitted themselves well. Real experience is a plus. That doesn't mean lack of that experience disqualifies someone as a good teacher. But most of the students won't have had that experience either and have no way of knowing if they are being given good advice or if it's just a good show. I've given lectures on the use of DNA in forensics and also as a tool for tracing ancestry, but I don't have hands-on experience in the field. I'm sure what I told people was correct, but if I wanted real training in its use, I'd want someone who had actually been doing that work for years.

I don't know, Doughnut. I used a guy in Blountville who charged $15, but I think he let his license go. On another matter, want to have lunch? If so, drop me a PM. I'm in Blountville.

BTW, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives SCOTUS a right to decide constitutionality. That is a long discussion involving Judiciary Acts and some interesting political stuff on the part of early justices. Let's just say it is accepted that SCOTUS gets to rule on these matters. Then again there is Andrew Jackson's comment about Indian matters that the court had made it's decision - now let us see them enforce it. Jackson won in the real world.

"Cruel and Unusual" is the legitimate territory of SCOTUS. And I agree that kid's testimony is particularly suspect. Sitting on a jury, I never trusted LE testimony, and found eye-witness testimony to be suspect to wishes and often incorrect. But that is an area I've researched a lot. Honestly it would depend on a lot of things. A 23 year old sleeping with a 17 year old? I wouldn't even vote to convict. A 50 year old's DMA test proven semen in a 10 year old? Take him out and shoot him. Around this area, there is a long history of grandpa "breaking in" his granddaughter. Sick. But the ruling should not be that the death penalty is always inappropriate.