[steveksux]

The equal protection clause explains why Chicago cops can't carry concealed when off duty, and why LEOSA was struck down as unconstitutional.

Randy

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[series1811]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

See, here you guys are again, calling me names and attacking me for making a point. Isn't that what DemcRATS do???

Argue the point I'm making instead of getting so emotional like a little child in a store getting told no. What's next, the island gonna "tip over" ?? "When you can't win a case on evidence you must attack the witnesses, confuse the jury".

And shame on you for wanting to limit speech when it doesn't fit "your narrative".

So, show me the court cases where "equal protection" doesn't apply to carrying a gun when no one else is "legally" allowed to do so. I'm in no way referring to the rest of what you referred to, nor did I ever, duhh.

Clyde

Oh, so now, we have to prove that your internet legal assertion (apparently based on your plain reading and interpretation of a phrase that has generated rooms of case law) is not true, rather than you having to prove that it is?

What a convenient way to argue your point.

We're the bad guys for asking you to prove your assertion (something that should be very easy for a person of your learned legal knowledge). We're not asking for a brief, just a cite. Is that a problem?

[razdog76]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

See, here you guys are again, calling me names and attacking me for making a point. Isn't that what DemcRATS do???

Argue the point I'm making instead of getting so emotional like a little child in a store getting told no. What's next, the island gonna "tip over" ?? "When you can't win a case on evidence you must attack the witnesses, confuse the jury".

And shame on you for wanting to limit speech when it doesn't fit "your narrative".

So, show me the court cases where "equal protection" doesn't apply to carrying a gun when no one else is "legally" allowed to do so. I'm in no way referring to the rest of what you referred to, nor did I ever, duhh.

Clyde

Clyde,

As usual you show up to the party, but don't bring anything. Listing the second sentence of the first of five parts is a lot like showing up with one beer bottle with a couple cigarette butts in the bottom. The 14th Amendment obviously came after the 13th, so lets start there.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery. As a result, many states passed separate laws for white people, and another set of laws for people of other races.

In response to the "Jim Crow" laws, the 14th Amendment was passed to nullify them. The meaning of it is obvious when looking at the entire amendment, which you may or may not have got to see. So, just because I had a spare minute, I included a link for you which explains the amendment in detail, and it does provide case law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

[ChiefWPD]

Originally Posted by steveksux

The equal protection clause explains why Chicago cops can't carry concealed when off duty, and why LEOSA was struck down as unconstitutional.

Randy

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Really? Chicago POs can't carry off-duty? Notwithstanding HR218
of course.

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by ChiefWPD

Really? Chicago POs can't carry off-duty? Notwithstanding HR218
of course.

CHP wasn't allowed to carry off duty a while back either.

[SKSman57]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

See, here you guys are again, calling me names and attacking me for making a point. Isn't that what DemcRATS do???

Argue the point I'm making instead of getting so emotional like a little child in a store getting told no. What's next, the island gonna "tip over" ?? "When you can't win a case on evidence you must attack the witnesses, confuse the jury".

And shame on you for wanting to limit speech when it doesn't fit "your narrative".





So, show me the court cases where "equal protection" doesn't apply to carrying a gun when no one else is "legally" allowed to do so. I'm in no way referring to the rest of what you referred to, nor did I ever, duhh.

Clyde

Wow... just wow... Epic internet lawyer fail.

For fun, let's play a game.

1. Please identify the two-step analysis that applies to equal protection clause challenges.

2. After identifying said two-step analysis, please point to the specific portion of said analysis that is important in this specific discussion.

3. Explain the concept of suspect classification as it relates to an equal protection clause challenge.

4. Point to any authority that would establish a particular suspect classification in this case.

5. Identify the appropriate standard of review under current equal protection clause jurisprudence as it relates to the above.

[wprebeck]

I love you guys!

[lawman800]

SKS, you are asking questions way beyond internet lawyer capabilities... I mean, those are things that you would have to know to be a first year law student in a ConLaw class!

[razdog76]

Originally Posted by lawman800

SKS, you are asking questions way beyond internet lawyer capabilities... I mean, those are things that you would have to know to be a first year law student in a ConLaw class!

This is why I don't provide too much detail, and supply the link.

[series1811]

Nothing to see here after that.

[wprebeck]

Originally Posted by series1811

Nothing to see here after that.

Clyde is busy with Wikipedia at the moment. Guess his Lexus Nexus account is down.

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by SKSman57

Wow... just wow... Epic internet lawyer fail.

For fun, let's play a game.

1. Please identify the two-step analysis that applies to equal protection clause challenges.

2. After identifying said two-step analysis, please point to the specific portion of said analysis that is important in this specific discussion.

3. Explain the concept of suspect classification as it relates to an equal protection clause challenge.

4. Point to any authority that would establish a particular suspect classification in this case.

5. Identify the appropriate standard of review under current equal protection clause jurisprudence as it relates to the above.

The two conceptions of that principle allow for due process and equal protection analyses to lead to contradictory results. The structure of that debate, which is apparent in a number of cases,[85] is as follows. One justice adopts a broad view of equal protection and concludes that the principle guarantees a given right to a class of people. Another justice adopts a narrow conception of equal protection and finds it inapplicable to the facts of the case.

The advocate of the narrow view then turns to a due process analysis and finds, in some cases, that due process does not entail the right at issue, or, if it does, that the benefit of the right is outweighed by its cost to the state.[86] In such cases, equal protection and due process analyses lead to divergent results.

For the rest see

Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education.

Clyde

[lawman800]

Where did you copy and paste that out of?

[4949shooter]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

The two conceptions of that principle allow for due process and equal protection analyses to lead to contradictory results. The structure of that debate, which is apparent in a number of cases,[85] is as follows. One justice adopts a broad view of equal protection and concludes that the principle guarantees a given right to a class of people. Another justice adopts a narrow conception of equal protection and finds it inapplicable to the facts of the case.

The advocate of the narrow view then turns to a due process analysis and finds, in some cases, that due process does not entail the right at issue, or, if it does, that the benefit of the right is outweighed by its cost to the state.[86] In such cases, equal protection and due process analyses lead to divergent results.

For the rest see

Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education.

Clyde

You are comparing two cases involving racial segregation and applying them to your principle that police shouldn't be able to carry if non-LE cannot carry.

You are basically comparing apples to oranges. I understand what you are trying to say, but for obvious reasons your analogy does not apply.

[SKSman57]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

The two conceptions of that principle allow for due process and equal protection analyses to lead to contradictory results. The structure of that debate, which is apparent in a number of cases,[85] is as follows. One justice adopts a broad view of equal protection and concludes that the principle guarantees a given right to a class of people. Another justice adopts a narrow conception of equal protection and finds it inapplicable to the facts of the case.

The advocate of the narrow view then turns to a due process analysis and finds, in some cases, that due process does not entail the right at issue, or, if it does, that the benefit of the right is outweighed by its cost to the state.[86] In such cases, equal protection and due process analyses lead to divergent results.

For the rest see

Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education.

Clyde

You fail your exam.

First of all, plagiarism is not demonstrative of a high intellect.

http://lawandpractice.wordpress.com/...ht-to-counsel/

Second, I asked you very specific questions. Your cut & paste job did not answer the questions that I asked you.

It is patently obvious that you don't even understand the questions that I asked you.

FYI: There are very specific cases that you could have referred to dealing with this issue that would have answered the questions that I asked. The fact that you were unable to find them is quite telling.

[wprebeck]

If you're going to cut and paste, and use that for your own words - you should probably take out the footnotes.

[lawman800]

That's what made me laugh... the 85 in brackets.

[Cochese]

:d:d:d:d:d

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by steveksux

The equal protection clause explains why Chicago cops can't carry concealed when off duty, and why LEOSA was struck down as unconstitutional.

Randy

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Originally Posted by ChiefWPD

Really? Chicago POs can't carry off-duty? Notwithstanding HR218
of course.

I may have been mixing in a little sarcasm back there...

Kind of like when someone posted that gasses don't clump together, and I agreed, saying clearly gasses don't clump together, because if they did, Earth would have an atmosphere, which it clearly does not...

I guess I was mocking more than responding... Chicago cops can carry off duty, and LEOSA, at least as of this moment, has not been declared unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by lawman800

CHP wasn't allowed to carry off duty a while back either.

That's just amazing...

Was that before LEOSA? I thought pretty much any sworn officer can legally carry under LEOSA, but if CCW isn't available, and department policy forbids off duty carry for some reason, that might even still be true somewhere... Legally they can still technically carry though.

Randy

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by wprebeck

If you're going to cut and paste, and use that for your own words - you should probably take out the footnotes.

so THAT's what they are...

I sometimes count like that [1] in my head when I'm making a difficult point. Cause [2] if I think too hard for more than 90 seconds at a time, my head [3] might explode.

Randy

[Panzergrenadier1979]

Originally Posted by wprebeck

If you're going to cut and paste, and use that for your own words - you should probably take out the footnotes.

So much fail in one compact package.

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by SKSman57

You fail your exam.

First of all, plagiarism is not demonstrative of a high intellect.

http://lawandpractice.wordpress.com/...ht-to-counsel/

Second, I asked you very specific questions. Your cut & paste job did not answer the questions that I asked you.

It is patently obvious that you don't even understand the questions that I asked you.

FYI: There are very specific cases that you could have referred to dealing with this issue that would have answered the questions that I asked. The fact that you were unable to find them is quite telling.

First off, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I ever want to be one. So, you asked a question, I found the answer I was looking for that suited the question, copy and pasted it, primarily because I'M NOT A LAWYER, or have any intention of being one.

You know, Heller and McDonald both started as "questions" about certain laws, you see where they went right????

So, keep it up, I'm happy to keep giving it back, and if it bothers you, well, put me on ignore.


Clyde

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by steveksux

That's just amazing...

Was that before LEOSA? I thought pretty much any sworn officer can legally carry under LEOSA, but if CCW isn't available, and department policy forbids off duty carry for some reason, that might even still be true somewhere... Legally they can still technically carry though.

Randy

That was a long time ago before they were recognized as peace officers in title, when their badges said "TRAFFIC OFFICER" but then again, that was department rumor from some officers who had friends who were chippies.

As far as statutes go, there was a specific section in CA Penal Code that defined LA City General Services Police and there's a section that specifically prohibited off duty carry.

[SKSman57]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

First off, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I ever want to be one. So, you asked a question, I found the answer I was looking for that suited the question, copy and pasted it, primarily because I'M NOT A LAWYER, or have any intention of being one.

You know, Heller and McDonald both started as "questions" about certain laws, you see where they went right????

So, keep it up, I'm happy to keep giving it back, and if it bothers you, well, put me on ignore.


Clyde

1. Copy and pasting the words of another without attribution is a character flaw. It's called plagiarism and is also known as stealing.

2. Your copy and paste didn't answer the questions that I posed. You might erroneously think that it did, but that's merely because you are not a lawyer and your internet lawyering on the Equal Protection Clause is quite clearly out of sync with the current state of the law in the United States.

3. Heller and McDonald are irrelevant to the particular line of inquiry that you started. You see, you set forth the premise regarding a particular area of the law that was, and is, quite incorrect. When folks called you on it, you spouted off a lot of nonsense. I merely posed a few rather elementary questions to you to demonstrate that nonsense.

4. You don't bother me at all. In fact, I find internet lawyering quite amusing. I rank it right up there with the people who think that gold fringe on an American flag deprives the court of jurisdiction and that signing a document "Without Prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207," and/or "Under Duress" has some sort of legal significance.

5. Notwithstanding 1-4 above, I think the time for our game has drawn to a close. If you feel the need to further pontificate on the LEOSA, perhaps with an attempt to interweave it with the UCC, I'll let you alone.

After all, "the weak and foolish must be left to their folly." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path Of The Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457 (1897).

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by SKSman57

1. Copy and pasting the words of another without attribution is a character flaw. It's called plagiarism and is also known as stealing.

2. Your copy and paste didn't answer the questions that I posed. You might erroneously think that it did, but that's merely because you are not a lawyer and your internet lawyering on the Equal Protection Clause is quite clearly out of sync with the current state of the law in the United States.

3. Heller and McDonald are irrelevant to the particular line of inquiry that you started. You see, you set forth the premise regarding a particular area of the law that was, and is, quite incorrect. When folks called you on it, you spouted off a lot of nonsense. I merely posed a few rather elementary questions to you to demonstrate that nonsense.

4. You don't bother me at all. In fact, I find internet lawyering quite amusing. I rank it right up there with the people who think that gold fringe on an American flag deprives the court of jurisdiction and that signing a document "Without Prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207," and/or "Under Duress" has some sort of legal significance.

5. Notwithstanding 1-4 above, I think the time for our game has drawn to a close. If you feel the need to further pontificate on the LEOSA, perhaps with an attempt to interweave it with the UCC, I'll let you alone.

After all, "the weak and foolish must be left to their folly." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path Of The Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457 (1897).

Not even close to stopping

Clyde