close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

New York and LEOSA

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by nohocop, Jan 15, 2013.

  1. SKSman57

    SKSman57

    556
    29
    Nov 13, 2008
    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.
     

  2. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    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!
     
  3. razdog76

    razdog76 Heavy Mettle

    3,660
    10
    Sep 26, 2007
    Ohio
    This is why I don't provide too much detail, and supply the link. :cool:
     
  4. wprebeck

    wprebeck Got quacks?

    8,542
    2,163
    Oct 20, 2002
    Mm..looks like heaven
    Clyde is busy with Wikipedia at the moment. Guess his Lexus Nexus account is down.
     
  5. 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
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. SKSman57

    SKSman57

    556
    29
    Nov 13, 2008
    You fail your exam.

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

    http://lawandpractice.wordpress.com...tection-developments-in-the-right-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.

    :wavey:
     
  8. wprebeck

    wprebeck Got quacks?

    8,542
    2,163
    Oct 20, 2002
    Mm..looks like heaven
    If you're going to cut and paste, and use that for your own words - you should probably take out the footnotes.
     
  9. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

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

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,365
    1,821
    Jul 12, 2007
    I may have been mixing in a little sarcasm back there... :tongueout::supergrin:

    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.

    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: Feb 3, 2013
  11. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,365
    1,821
    Jul 12, 2007
    :rofl::rofl::rofl: so THAT's what they are... :whistling:

    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: Feb 3, 2013
  12. Panzergrenadier1979

    Panzergrenadier1979 Keystone Cop

    2,145
    1
    Jan 16, 2009
    Central Pennsylvania
    :rofl:

    So much fail in one compact package.
     
  13. 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
     
  14. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    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.
     
  15. SKSman57

    SKSman57

    556
    29
    Nov 13, 2008
    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).

    :wavey:
     
  16. Not even close to stopping :wavey:

    Clyde