GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2013, 05:39   #276
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,351
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
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 07:22   #277
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
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?
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 15:36   #278
razdog76
Heavy Mettle
 
razdog76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
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
__________________
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
razdog76 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 16:55   #279
ChiefWPD
Senior Member
 
ChiefWPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wellfleet MA
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
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.
__________________
Chief WPD
ChiefWPD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 17:16   #280
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,300
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
Really? Chicago POs can't carry off-duty? Notwithstanding HR218
of course.
CHP wasn't allowed to carry off duty a while back either.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 22:55   #281
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
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.
SKSman57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 23:20   #282
wprebeck
Die, bird, die!
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a swamp, if I'm lucky
Posts: 8,436
I love you guys!
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 10:03   #283
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,300
Blog Entries: 1
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!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 16:25   #284
razdog76
Heavy Mettle
 
razdog76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
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.
__________________
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
razdog76 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 07:04   #285
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Nothing to see here after that.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 07:46   #286
wprebeck
Die, bird, die!
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a swamp, if I'm lucky
Posts: 8,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Nothing to see here after that.
Clyde is busy with Wikipedia at the moment. Guess his Lexus Nexus account is down.
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 08:24   #287
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKSman57 View Post
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
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 10:53   #288
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,300
Blog Entries: 1
Where did you copy and paste that out of?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 11:12   #289
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 12,797


Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
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.
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS
4949shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 11:33   #290
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
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.

SKSman57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 11:46   #291
wprebeck
Die, bird, die!
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a swamp, if I'm lucky
Posts: 8,436
If you're going to cut and paste, and use that for your own words - you should probably take out the footnotes.
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 12:51   #292
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,300
Blog Entries: 1
That's what made me laugh... the 85 in brackets.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 13:01   #293
Cochese
CLM Number 209
Most mackinest
 
Cochese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Unmarked Rustbox
Posts: 16,169


:d:d:d:d:d
__________________
"Never been dumped 'cause I'm the most mackinest,
never been jumped 'cause I'm known the most packinest."
Cochese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 13:51   #294
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
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

Last edited by steveksux; 02-03-2013 at 13:52..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 13:55   #295
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
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

Last edited by steveksux; 02-03-2013 at 13:56..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 14:21   #296
Panzergrenadier1979
Keystone Cop
 
Panzergrenadier1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
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.
__________________
"If you stopped yourself every time you said, 'I have to', and change it to, 'I get to', it might change your entire experience."
Deputy Kyle Pagerly, Berks Co.Sheriff's Office, PA. EOW 6/29/2011.


Panzergrenadier1979 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 16:22   #297
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKSman57 View Post
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
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 17:09   #298
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,300
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 18:29   #299
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
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).

SKSman57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 18:50   #300
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKSman57 View Post
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
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:30.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,300
362 Members
938 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42