Democrats’ Second Amendment ‘Syndrome’ Plan: Plotting the Next Big Fight over Gun Rights

Below is my column in the Hill on the next round of litigation over the Second Amendment. New York and other states quickly moved to exploit the concurrence of Justice Brett Kavanaugh (who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts) that state officials believe contains a loophole for greater gun limitations based not on the weapons but the places where they can be taken.

Here is the column:

In the movie “The Incredibles,” the villainous character “Syndrome” reveals a plan to make everyone a superhero. Syndrome’s motive is hardly altruistic: He hated superheroes and “with everyone super, no one will be.” Democratic leaders seem to be planning their own Syndrome plan for the Second Amendment — to make everywhere a special or “sensitive place” so that few places outside the home are protected by the constitutional right.

The recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen was one of the most significant victories for the Second Amendment in the history of the Supreme Court. It was the latest defeat for the State of New York, which — having supplied a series of dubious state laws that have served to expand individual protections under the Constitution — has been the greatest gift to gun owners since the invention of the revolver.

Right on cue, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) promised Syndrome-style legislation within an hour of the release of the Bruen decision. To make matters worse, Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places.

Hochul and others are relying on a concurrence in Bruen by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Kavanaugh reaffirmed the language in the 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia that the Second Amendment was “neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.” States and the federal government could still adopt some restrictions on firearms. He specifically noted that the list of “sensitive places” referenced in the earlier case was not “exhaustive.”

Kavanaugh’s limiting language was immediately taken as a license to bar guns by redefining places where they might be carried.

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed 43-20 and has elements that are ripe for constitutional challenge. However, it was the list that was so striking; indeed, it is hard to come up with a place that would not be declared special or sensitive. The list would seem to cover most areas outside of the home, including government buildings; any location providing health, behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; any place of worship or religious observation; libraries; public playgrounds; public parks; zoos; the location of any state-funded or -licensed programs; educational institutions both in elementary and higher education; any vehicle used for public transportation; all public transit including airports and bus terminals; bars and restaurants; entertainment, gaming and sporting events and venues; polling places; any public sidewalk or public area restricted for a special event, and protests or rallies. That includes simply passing through Times Square.

Montgomery County, Maryland, officials have proposed to bar the legal right to carry firearms “in or within 100 yards of a place of public assembly.”

Other states like California are moving to bar permitted gun owners from carrying guns into any school grounds, college and university campuses, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public transit, public parks, playgrounds, public demonstrations and any place where alcohol is sold.

These states believe they have an ally in Roberts. The chief justice has been criticized in the past for embracing rights while creating avenues for their circumvention. The most obvious example is his opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, finding that the individual mandate of ObamaCare violated federalism but then saying that it did not matter if it is simply called a tax (which no party had done).

These states are now hoping Roberts and Kavanaugh will do the same thing with gun rights in staunchly defending the individual right to carry a gun unless states simply define a wide array of places as “gun-free.” It is not the gun but the place that’s driving the exclusion.

The problem is that Hochul and others may have been too open in gaming the opinion.

Roberts is the ultimate incrementalist and institutionalist. As shown in his sole concurrence in the abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, he is not afraid to stand alone in seeking a moderate compromise. However, he is not someone who relishes being treated as a chump.

Simply listing most of Manhattan as a “sensitive place” will again push the constitutional envelope. It will force the court to again limit the authority of the states to shoulder the burden of balancing the individual right to gun ownership against the need to protect these places from the exercise of that right.

In answering that question, the court is likely to ask how statistically lawful gun permit owners have caused or materially increased the public safety risk in these areas. Studies have generally not shown a clear relationship between restrictive gun permit laws and a significant decrease in gun violence.

When you say that you are going play these justices, you would be wise to head Syndrome’s other advice: “You can’t count on anyone, especially your heroes.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

141 thoughts on “Democrats’ Second Amendment ‘Syndrome’ Plan: Plotting the Next Big Fight over Gun Rights”

  1. The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” is not a dispositive limitation on the private ownership firearms. It doesn’t actually address any limitations. The left claims it does, but it does not.

    That phrase is simply the Founding Fathers’ political explanation for such ownership, that reason being the relevant one to a national Constitution. There can be other reasons for private ownership, and this clause does not preclude or even address them.

    “Shall not be infringed.” THAT IS THE DISPOSITIVE CLAUSE. No right is absolute, but clearly the Founding Fathers wanted the widescale private ownership of potent firearms.

    I would add that this has always been the traditional interpretation since the founding. The left just makes s*** up.

    1. It’s my understanding that before Heller the common interpretation that was reflected in United States v Miller (1939) was that the gun right was not an individual right but was tied to a well regulated militia.

      1. Concerned, that was an interpretation. But you can’t find any constitutional basis to form that “interpretation. Letters of mark and reprisals, proves that interpretation null.

        1. As I see it, the gun right is tied to a regulated militia and in letters of marque and reprisal. I think an individual gun right would be a lot clearer if you simply removed the introductory militia clause.

      2. The right itself has never changed, The courts interpretation of the right has changed.

        Miller is obviously error on its face.

        It claims that the constitution gave the federal government great power for calling up the militia.
        If the 2nd amendment is NOT an individual right – then it is redundant.

        The 2nd amendment is part of “the bill of rights”. The entirety of “the Bill of rights” is about limiting federal power – not expanding it

        The decision in Miller . is idiotically illogical and a historical.

        The driving force behind Heller and McDonald was research into the actual legislative history of the 2nd amendment, and the public understanding of it at the time the constitution was ratified, as well as even more important – especially with respect to McDonald, the history of the 14th amendment.
        The legislative history of the 14th amendment – the priviledges an immunities clause makes clear:
        The 2nd amendment was an INDIVIDUAL right. That both the founders and the authors of the 14th amendment intended that.
        And that the 14th amendment applied that RIGHT to the states.

        The authors of the 14th amendment explicitly intended to impose on all states, but especially southern states an individual right for Black’s to own firearms.

        1. John B Say, Miller was not obviously in error. It offered a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Not the most obvious one, nor the one Heller adopted, but still a reasonable one.

          But we must be clear that the claim that Miller found there was no individual right is and always was A LIE. Miller agreed (because at the time nobody disputed it) that the right is held by each individual. The decision was about which weapons are protected; the court said that weapons which have no conceivable military use are not protected. Since the purpose of the amendment is to ensure there would be a large pool of armed people ready to be called up to the militia, it protected only the individual right to such weapons as might be useful to them should that occur. So every time a Democrat condemns a weapon as “a weapon of war”, she only emphasizes that under Miller that weapon is protected.

          1. The word interpretation is part of the problem.

            We should not have to “interpret” the law or constitution – we should just have to read it.
            SOMETIMES – when circumstances or words have changed over a long period – we must determine how a law or the constitution would have been read THEN.

            There are many decisions similar to miller that confuse what was meant by Militia in 1787 and what is meant by it now.

            In 1787 The militia was Every able bodied male over the age of 16.

            In 1787 it does not matter which clause in the 2nd amendment you read – everyone – or at-least all able bodied men, had the right to and in many states were REQUIRED to posses firearms.

            But the situation gets worse with the passage of the 14th amendment.

            The privledges and immunites clause in the 14th amendment was a bitch slap at the courts for ignoring the 9th amendment.
            A problem we still have.
            The constitution contains 4500 words. About as many as a medium sized magazine article.
            There are very few superfluous words in the constitution.
            Everything in the constitution – including amendments MUST be given meaning.
            The ordinary rules of statutory interpretation require us to presume that the people drafting laws and constitutions did not sprinkle them with lots of unnecescary words and clauses.

            This is also why in addition to giving meaning to every word, we MUST read the powers of government narrowly and the rights of individuals broadly – and that is pretty close to what the 9th amendment says.

            Well just as they do today the Early courts ignored the 9th amendment. Which pissed off alot of the people who created this country, because the 9th amendment was an important part of the bill of rights. It was the answer to those opposed to a bill of rights because the courts would decide those are the only rights we have. Which is what happened anyway.

            The privileges and imunities clause was a 2nd go at the 9th amendment. It went further than the 9th amendment, it said there are things that are not even rights that the government can not step on. Further the 14th amendment applied to ALL government – there was no argument – such as that over much of the bill of rights that it did not apply to the states.

            But in addition to saying – all of us have more than just rights that the govenrment can not step on, the 14th amendment was explicitly intended to extend the 2nd amendment right to bear arms to individual free blacks, in the south.

            Miller is error, and it always has been. It is error because it is an “interpretation” of the 2nd amendment – outside the context it was written, and ignorant of the legislative history of the 14th amendment.

            The legislative history of the 14th amendment is how we got from Heller to McDonald.

          2. We are not supposed to be looking for a reasonable interpretation.
            We are supposed to be looking for the actual meaning of the constitution and its amendments.

            If we do not like what the constitution actually says – we can change it.
            It is deman near impossible to fix the lawlessness that results when we “interpret” the constitution to get to the ends we want.
            Whether it is the constitution or the law, it is not the role of courts to create ambiguity in order to give government power.
            If the is actual ambiguity, then we must read that ambiguity narrowly – because we can always amend the constitution or rewrite the law to give government more power. But taking power away granted by an expansive reading is near impossible.

            Stare Decisis is not so much “leaving sleeping dogs lie” as the presumption that prior courts got the actual meaning correct.

            When it is clear they did not, it is the duty of the court to correct.

            Roe and Casey were WRONG, and Dobbs correctly overturns them. Alito’s attack on the unconstitutional construction of Roe and Casey is correct.

            The problem is that Dobb’s is not better. There is not a right to abortion. There is a right to control of your own body.

            Hopefully sometime soon Dobbs will be overturned as error, But I doubt that.

            Though Dobbs would not be even close to the most consequential supreme court decision that is still “the law” that is blatantly wrong.

            There is a long list.

            All it takes is reading the constitution and asking – “if these words mean anything, how is it that the federal government is not constrained by them ?”

          3. The militia clause specified A purpose, for the 2nd clause in the 2nd amendment.
            A purpose is not the same as The purpose.

            The militia clause is A justification for the 2nd amendment, it was not THE sole justification.

            Further at the time of Miller the 14th amendment had been long passed.
            The priviledges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment does not specifically note firearms as one of the priviledges and immunities, protected, but the legislative history does.

            Again Hence McDonald following Heller.

      3. I would note that though these decisions did not result in overturning gun laws, SCOTUS has uniforming read the militia to be all able bodied men in the United States.

      4. Concerned, your understanding is incorrect. On the contrary, Miller affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms absoutely is an individual right. Anyone who has told you otherwise was lying. The decision was not about who has the right, but about which weapons are protected.

        1. Thanks for the information. So what did Heller do compared to Miller? Just expanded the types of arms/guns?

          1. Heller reaffirmed what every court had always said about it being an individual right, rejecting the arguments made that it was a collective right, which did not rest on any supreme court precedent.

            But Heller says that the preamble is just a preamble and doesn’t affect the scope of the protected right. It says the purpose of the right (as opposed to the reason it’s singled out for explicit protection rather than consigned to the 9th amendment), is, among other things, self defense. And it says that any weapon commonly used for self defense or home defense is protected, even if it has no military use.

      5. “. . . was that the gun right was not an individual right . . .”

        That is inaccurate.

        During the 19th century (a more intellectually rational period), 2A was widely regarded as an individual right. There is ample scholarship documenting that fact.

    2. “The left just makes s*** up.”

      You could be more consistent with your name if, instead of altering the censored word, you use σκατά instead 🙂

      1. Allen, ATS is our scatologist of record. I can’t hold a candle to him, but incense would definitely help 😉

          1. George, how can you say such a thing? I believe in the Constitution, but I have little control over its interpretation. I’ll live with an imperfect Constitution. (Perfection is the enemy of good.) You won’t so you want to tear it up and replace it with your own. You don’t believe in the amendment process. You don’t believe in the Supreme Court.

            What are we going to do with you, George?

            1. Start here: Neither Obama nor Harris will ever be a “natural born citizen.”

              Because you support these people, you ignore and deny the Constitution.
              __________________________________________________________

              Article 2, Section 1

              No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

              1. .George, I don’t support those people. Therefore, by your logic, I Support the Constitution. Though it is true, I support the Constitution, your logic is faulty.

                Once again, I look to the Constitution. Take the issue to court or pass an amendment. Don’t you support the Constitution?

    3. “EPIPHANY” FOR YOU!
      ___________________

      “You can’t handle the truth!”

      – Colonel Jessup
      _____________

      Pardon me but your error is showing; you could not be more wrong.

      If you’re half right, you’re half wrong; if you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.

      If no right is absolute, rights do not exist.

      If the freedom of speech is not absolute, the freedom of speech does not exist.

      If freedom of the press is not absolute, freedom of the press does not exist (you’re beginning to imitate “Crazy Abe” Lincoln here).

      If the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, no right to keep and bear arms exists.

      If the right to private property is not absolute, the right to private property does not exist.

      That you don’t favor or enjoy a right, does not cause the right to cease to exist.

      If you don’t like a citizen’s free speech, tough luck.

      If you don’t like a citizen’s kept and borne arms, too bad for you, emigrate.

      Rights that are natural and God-given cannot be denied and/or abrogated by “government,” or you.

      Free American people are not asking you or democrats for rights; free American people already possess rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities enumerated by the Constitution, and those not enumerated.

      Natural and God-given rights cannot be taken or denied by “government” they are already the possession of the American people.

      Get used to it.

      Try a work-around.
      _______________

      Now, send that message to the Supreme Court.

      🙂 🙂 🙂

      1. The Founders have an additional point on the issue:
        _________________________________________

        9th Amendment

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  2. More of Turley’s paid pandering to the disciples and attacking Democrats, New York State and Gov Hochul, frequent targets of alt-right media of which Turley has chosen to associate himself. Plus, it’s an effort to validate the politicans in black robes who were appointed by the election cheater and who boldface lied to get the power to take away individual rights, such as abortion (except for toting guns, of course). First of all, the 2nd Amendment speaks to a “well-regulated militia”. Those words do not logically equate to an individual right to carry a gun anywhere and anytime, or to possess military-style assault rifles that exist only to kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time. It wasn’t until 2008 that the SCOTUS held that the 2nd Amendment could be construed to an individual right to carry a gun, so it’s not “deeply rooted”. Roe was the law of the land for about 50 years. It is indeed ironic that the politicians in black robes believe that the Constitution allows a state to take away a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, even one resulting from rape or incest, but can also be stretched to prevent a state from limiting where deadly weapons can be carried. If “states rights” are allegedly sacrosanct, then states should be able to regulate when and where guns can be carried. The point is the illogicity of the SCOTUS since the politicians who wear black robes were invalidly inserted onto our court of last resort by someone who had to cheat his way into office.

    1. Rights must be read broadly and government powers must be read narrowly or you end up with authoritarianism.

      I keep beling told by the likes of you that I should fear totalitarianism from the right,
      But it is the left that is constantly trying to narrow actual rights and increase government powers and tell us all how we must live.

      “Second Amendment
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The first clause is a justification of the 2nd, NOT a limit.

      If you are going to try to make claims based on the text – CITE THE TEXT. Not part of it.

      Further the constitutional meaning of militia in 1787 was – all able bodied men over the age of 16.
      In many states they were REQUIRED to own a gun by law.

      The words do not equate to a right to carry arms everywhere and all the time.
      They do equate to a right to carry arms MOST everywhere and MOST all the time.
      “sensitive places” was not an invitation to reduce the right to nothing.

      “Those words do not logically equate to an individual right to carry a gun anywhere and anytime, or to possess military-style assault rifles that exist only to kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time”
      That is pretty much what those words DO mean.

      The Pennsylvania rifle often known as the Kentucky rifle WAS the “military-style assault rifles” of its time.

      The security of a free state as used int he constitution refers to the ability of citizens to defend against military invaders and/or oppressive government.

      You are correct that it took Scotus several centuries to read the constitution as it was intended.

      But there is no doubt how it was intended. Further the priviledges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment which applies to the states was DELIBERATELY intended to assure that freed black slaves had an INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms.
      You can review the legislative history of the drafting of the reconstruction amendments.

      The fact that SCOTUS took 200 years to capitulate to the intented meaning of the 2nd and 14th amendments does not alter their correct meaning.

      You have the ability to limit or terminate the individual right to firearms – Amend the constitution.

      It is that simple. it has always been that simple. Yet idiots on the left are constantly seeking to infringe on our rights through the back door, and lie about it when the front door is open.

      The second amendment is the enforcement mechanism for what is written in a much more important document – the declaration of independence “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”

      You should never forget that.
      “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,”

    2. If you are being raped, your rights allow you to kill the rapist.
      Six hours latter, you may not.

      Rape and incest are heinous, but being a victim does not confer on you rights you would not have otherwise.

      Both Roe and Dobb’s were decided wrongly, There is no right to an abortion, there is a right to control of your own body.

      To not be forced to mask against your will, to not be forced to be vaccinated against your will, to not be sterilized against your will.
      And to not be forced to remain pregnant against your will. But removing the fetus and murdering the fetus are not the same thing.

      If you can not get the rights correct, the analysis gets muddled.

    3. the 2nd amendment is explicitly NOT about states rights, and the 14th even more so.

      The Bill of rights is explicitly about YOUR rights.

    4. You can amend the constitution to repeal or limit the 2nd amendment or any other rights in the bill of rights,
      You can amend the constitution to grant abortion rights or any other rights you wish.

  3. Jonathan: You are obviously livid at Roberts and Kavanaugh for allowing NY to exploit a loophole and prohibit guns in “sensitive places”. Gov. Hochul played her ace in the hole–trying to make New Yorkers safer. Glad to see Hochul is placing the rights of New Yorkers ahead of the agenda of the NRA and gun industry that wants to return NY back to the Wild West days.

    1. If everyone is a racist, no one is a racist,
      If everywhere is a sensitive place, nowhere is a sensitive place.

      To the extent the law has loopholes those MUST be construed for the rights of the individual not the power of the state – or we are lawless.

      But that is what you want.

      The odds are excellent that the consequence of this will be a very pissed SCOTUS, and a very narrow definition of “sensitive places”

      I used to say “Thank god for Georgia” because it was guaranteed they would try to find a work arround any supreme court decision that protected individual rights.

      Now it is “thank god for New York”

  4. Professor Turley did not include in the list of sensitive places language in the bill that makes all private venues gun-free zones, unless the owner posts a sign that says guns allowed. This means for example, if you leave home with a gun, you could not stop to buy gas, unless the station has a sign saying guns welcome!

  5. What we find is the Democrats continue to do anything and everything to see that government (Democrat government) control Americans life. They care little for the minorities they exalt who are their “useful idiot’s. Their allies in MSM report lies while corporate America bend their knees to them. In the end it will be left to Americans to decide how deeply they love their guns and freedom.

    1. Republicans are the ones who want to control women’s uteruses.
      Republicans are the ones trying to exclude parts of US history from public school curricula.

      Don’t pretend that it’s all on the Dems’ side. Both sides do it.

      1. First of all: what is a woman?
        Secondly: how exactly do Republicans want to control their uterus?

      2. “Republicans are the ones who want to control women’s uteruses.”

        What a stupid comment. Next ATS will tell us where the uterine brakes and gas pedal are.

          1. ATS, your OCD has taken control of your mind. Come back when you find the uterine brakes and gas pedal.

            #15/21. Errant vote counting. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp referred the audited November 2020 election results in Fulton County to the State Election Board after multiple reviews found three dozen significant problems with absentee ballot counting, including duplicate tallies, math errors and transposed data. Kemp’s referral calls into question hundreds of ballots in the official count.

            https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/bombshells-belie-big-lie-21-confirmed-illegalities-irregularities-2020

      3. Republicans are seeking to exclude FAKE history.

        Regardless, those on the left seek to make all of history out of a tiny bit of history.

        If you are a student in america – which do you need to thrive as an adult ?

        False claims that this country would not exist and would not have thrived but for slavery ?
        Or enough math to make change for a 20 ?

        50 years ago I was taught more about the history of blacks in the US than most left wing nuts today have a clue about

        None of that has enabled me to do a job better, or care for my family better, or prepared for my retirement better.
        None of it has changed anything about Covid.

        When we are graduating poor students that can not read – Does it matter what was in their history texts ?

        2+2=4 if you do not get that everything you are taught about history is worthless.

        According to EJI since the civil war 4500 blacks have been lynched in the US.
        100 times that number of whites died in the civil war.

        My ancestors left conditions near as bad as slavery to come to this country and endure conditions that were little better. And they did not likely come here by choice. Only to fight and many of them die to free slaves. My ancestors were not among the small portion of whites in the south that owned slaves.
        The came from countries where they were treated like slave up until the 20th century.
        There are more americans from my ancestral home living in the US than from africa.
        Yet US history barely mentions my ancestors.

        Why is it that you think that a small portion of the 14% of this country that is black is entitled to dictate all of what is taught about the past ?

  6. Similar topic. Old farts can cut the grass in their yards. They should buy a stand up self propelled electric battery operated lawn mower. No gas engine to deal with an nd less noise and no pollution. No we lectric cord to drag a to ounf. No push. Just walk behind and turn. Set the height. Do your job!

    1. You can hold an opinion regarding what others SHOULD do.

      You are not entitled to FORCE them to do as you wish.

      When you attempt to you act immorally
      and you risk a justified violent response.

    1. Sammy,
      You have that backwards.
      Republicans are obsessed with defending law abiding gun owners Constitutional rights.
      Democrats are obsessed with turning all law abiding gun owners into criminals.
      Democrats are also obsessed with violence by taking no actions to punish criminals who commit crimes. All one has to do is look at Democrat controlled cities, like Chicago, NYC, LA.

  7. Governor Hokum strikes, again. Sanctuary cities and rebellious governors. Sounds like insurrection to me.

  8. I don’t even consider this to be a partisan issue anymore. I do not consider my stance against the DNC to be partisan, either – our Democratic party is no longer our Democratic party. It’s basically a bunch of oligarchs and those they successfully influence vs. quite literally everyone else. Agree with us, submit, or suffer, basically; laws be damned.

    1. The fundimenta problem with SB8 was not the law or its enforcement mechanism.

      It was that the Courts CHOSE to deny standing with respect to FACIAL constitutional challenges based on rules of standing that should only apply to
      as applied challenges.

      Everyone must always have standing to challenge the on its face constitutionality of any law.

      As applied challenges must always wait for the law to be applied and THEN to evaluate whether the law acts constitutionally in application.

      1. Our opinions differ.

        Beyond that, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You’re the same guy who insisted that geometric growth is exponential growth and has a mind closed to learning that you’re wrong about that.

        1. Everything is not an opinion.

          NO I am the same person who a bunch of idiots attacked for correctly using “exponential” to describe an increasing rate of increase.
          You are an idiot that can not grasp that is correct.

          When you google “geometric Growth” – 2 of the 1st 3 hits are articles titled “exponential growth”

          “On Wikipedia, the terms Exponential Growth and Geometric Growth are listed as synonymous, and defined as when the growth rate of the value of a mathematical function is proportional to the function’s current value”

          You are someone apparently so embarrassed by your past posts to be unwilling to be identified with them.

          Further the core point of the debate was that the rate of growth was NOT linear.

          The laws of physics dictate that linear increases of temperature require exponentially greater energy.

          https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/taminos_fraxxon_vision.jpg

            1. Nope.

              We have been through this before.

              You have been caught in innumerable errors.
              Including that your own math does not get you where you claim.

          1. Instead of turning to reliable mathematical sources, you turn to unreliable sources.

            I was also misremembering: you didn’t confuse geometric and exponential growth. (See how easy it is to admit mistakes? If only you weren’t too arrogant to do so.) You confused power functions with exponential functions. The fact remains that your mind was closed to learning.

            1. ATS, you have changed your tune. Your prior link proves nothing about “power functions”. The discussion at the time was quite complex because David and John didn’t have a meeting of the minds. You wanted to protect David while shafting John, so you took the discussion out of context. In other words, in your zeal to fight, you were talking at cross purposes with John.

              John was not wrong, and you weren’t wrong from your angle. But if one took the discussion in the proper context, John was right, and his math detailing the specific calculations involved would prevail.

            2. “You confused power functions with exponential functions. ”

              Nope, You went down an irrelvant rathole and were wrong.

              Your debate over sources is PROOF of your own error.

              You assumed a specific meaning for exponential, when there are many meanings, as the sources you are calling unreliable point out.

              You made the same error that you have made with exponential growth and geometric growth.
              In most contexts they are interchangeable – including mathematical contexts. But they are not interchangeable in EVERY context.

              The term exponential is accurately used to mean an increasing rate of increase.
              That in some contexts it means something narrower is irrelevant.

              Just as blue sometimes means a color and sometimes means a mood.

              1. “Just as blue sometimes means a color and sometimes means a mood.”

                John, be careful with such statements when speaking to ATS. Such natural impreciseness can trigger his OCD and force him to increase his meds.

                1. It is not possible to take that much care or to be that precise.

                  DB and ATS took issue with Exponentially – which CAN have a very specific and precise meaning.
                  But it is also used – both in general speech and even in mathematics it is commonly used as a generic term for an increasing rate of increase. Further it is the most common term for that. There are other terms but each of those has the SAME problem – i.e. it is used both generically and specifically.

                  More recently ATS tried to use Geometrically – both exponentially and geometrically are used generically as well as specifically.
                  But ATS has now decided that enven Geometrically is not correct and is using polynomially.

                  Most everyone knows that if A varies exponentially with B – that means incremental increases in B mean every greater increases in A.

                  I does not actually matter in my argument the precise form of A’s increase with respect to B. All that matters is that we are not seeing that relationship.

                  Ultimately the debate ended because DB made the inverse of the argument and used logrithmatically.
                  Which is ALSO a generic term for the inverse of the generic term exponentially. Which ALSO covers many relations that are not precisely logrithmatic.

                  1. “But ATS has now decided that enven Geometrically is not correct and is using polynomially.”

                    John, don’t worry about these shifts in what ATS says. Sudden shifts occur when medications are adjusted. With time he will settle down until another crisis occurs. That is normal for abnormal ATS.

                    It is clear what these two did. They magnify everything to so they can find one pixel out of a million that can be considered slightly out of place. ATS’s problem stems from OCD and David Benson’s from being retired too long and never having to face reality in the classroom.

                    1. I am not concerned about them.

                      I was making several other points.

                      IT is not possible nor desirable to be incredibly precise about an argument that something fails obviously on its face.

                      When we see someone struck by a brick fall dead to the street – we do not need to calculate the velocity of the brick at impact.

                      Next, in any long exchange where they actually try to make an argument it is guaranteed hey will contradict themselves repeatedly.

                      At the same time given a long enough and convoluted enough and far enough debate leading down the rabbit hole it is also guaranteed that at somepoint all parties will make mistakes. Often inconsequential ones. regardless it is unavoidable.

                      I have said before that certain arguments I make in exactly the same way all the time – not cut and paste, but I do not change the critical words,
                      There are certainly either ways to express the same thoughts – and I am more than creative enough to make the same argument 10 different ways.
                      But the arguments that I do not change are tested. They have been attacked repeatedly as they are and not been found wanting.

                      When I change an important word to be creative – on occasion that results in a new attack – because the new word does not mean precisely the same thing as the old one.

                      When making new arguments – there is always the problem of not chosing the correct words.

                      The debate here about exponentially vs, geometrically vs polynomial is garbage. The accepted general term for increasing rates of increase is exponentially.

                      But DB and ATS are correct that in very specific domains exponentially has a much narrower meaning.
                      Though they are both INCORRECT in claiming that domain is all of math.

                    2. John B Say remains simply wrong about the term exponential increase. There is a standard meaning in all of mathematics, including accounting.

                    3. nd you were wrong. Any statements by John that might have been interpreted wrongly by you were corrected by him. When he gave his explanation, you couldn’t argue because he was right. You stood on your narrow interpretation, which could only demonstrate an individual with tunnel vision.

                    4. No there is not a standard meaning, there are many meanings.
                      Nor is there a standard meaning in mathematics. I provided numerous sources that defined and used exponential in the way that I did.

                      Not only are you wrong , but YOUR whole argument was irrelevant from the start.

                      S-B is a mathematical equation that expresses precisely the relationship between energy and temperature.

                      Whether you describe that relationship as exponential, geometric, polynomial, or a steep curve – the exact relationship is defined by the equation.

                      So your entire argument has been an attempt to enforce YOUR prefered words – it has had NOTHING to do with the substance.

                      YOUR argument is no different than trying to force me to call you “zer” because you claim that more accurately describes your gender.

                      Your incorrect argument attempting to compell YOUR specific words, does not alter the underlying reality.

                      But this is common with leftist idiots.

                      Where necescary – and it is not always necescary we attempt to be precise with words – because doing so more accurately communicates reality.

                      The communications themselves are NOT reality. They are merely a better or worse description of it.

                      Arguments over words are not arguments about reality, they are arguments about communicating reality.

                      The S-B equation effectively communicated reality from the start. You have variously accepted it, rejected it, used it unwittingly, got into more idiotic semantic arguments about the descriptions of the terms of S-B.

                      I asked you to graph it. I even asked you to graph your own GF permutation of it.
                      I provided you with a link to several math sites that will allow you to graph functions.

                      Neither Arrenhius, nor SB, nor Plank, nor your GF equation produce results that conform to reality – much less predictions.

                      To anyone with a brain that would refute the argument that CO2 is a consequential driver of temperatures.

                      “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”

                      Richard Lindzen

                2. Where possible I try to make arguments that are as macro as possible – that do NOT hinge on highly technical details.

                  That does NOT mean I can not deal with highly technical details. But that those arguments are outside the rich of most people.
                  It is also usually true that if something fails in a very narrow highly technical fashion that with small adjustments it will succeed.

                  But when something fails at a macro level – one that ordinary humans can easily observe, the claim can rarely be fixed.

                  And finally it is USUALLY true that when something fails in a small and highly technical manner – it is not important as a matter of policy and government.

                  Covid policies have failed spectacularly. We need not argue details. There is no observable difference in outcomes between countries with draconian policies and those that have none. You do not need to be a public health expert or a virologist to understand that. You do not need to be either to understand that Covid is inconsequential for nearly all young people and extremely dangerous to very old people.
                  You do not need to be an expert to understand that Covid is dangerous to people with lots of health issues and not dangerous to those who are healthy.

                  While some of this information required experts of one kind or another to gather, it does not require expertise to understand it.

        2. So you think countering one false remark with another in an unrelated field is wise ?

          Regardless, you are correct – I do not admit error when I have not made an error.

          My mind IS closed about that.

        3. John, it is impossible to deal with ATS. I think he can do some math, but as proven before, he is only good with rote processes. Understanding and critical thinking are not his strong points. Add that to obsessive-compulsive behavior, and you see the results. I like to play and see what rats will do. Anonymous the Stupid is, therefore, very entertaining for me.

          1. I should have added:

            I followed the entertaining discussion. You read and remember Benson’s reply, which was not what John said. Benson did an out-of-context search on Wikipedia. John cleared up the problem.

            You have a very shallow mind and deal with out-of-context error correction. That fools your pretend friends, alternative aliases, and some leftist friends who seldom understand the context and misquotes.

          2. The exponential argument that has gone on for hundreds of posts is ludicrously stupid.

            And BTW an example of the problem with getting into word games over definitions.

            Exponential has many meanings in many contexts. In most of those exponential and ATS’s new favorite Geometric have the same meaning. An increasing rate of increase. It was absolutely clear that was my meaning in the posts that started this.

            And that “increasing rate of increase” is the ONLY requirement for the argument I made to be correct.

            The attack on my argument was that – there must be atleast one context in which exponential means something different from what I said. And it is possibel that after half a dozen failed attempts, DB and Amazon might have stumbled on one.
            But that was not relaevant because it was not near close to the original context.

            The core point I was making was that linear increases in temperature require significantly MORE than linear increases in energy.
            It does not matter whether that is exponential, geometric, or any other mathematical form that reflects and increasing rate of increase.

            I would note that in their efforts to find some means of proving me wrong, not only did DB and ATS lose sight of their error demonstrated by the origianl argument – but they made numerous other mathematical errors in their arguments over exponential, before eventually getting to an incredibly narrow and inapplicable scope that at least they were not wrong about.

            1. You’re like Humpty Dumpty:
              “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

              ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

              ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

              You use mathematical terms but don’t care what their mathematical definition is. Your mind is closed.

              1. Exponential is a generic term.
                It is also a generic term in mathematics. That is why I found numerous mathematical source that used it in the same fashion I did.
                It can also be a very narrow term – one that obviously had nothing to do with the discussion – except that narrow use of exponential is inside the same domain as the generic use.

                You recently countered with Geometric – which is EXACTLY the same – it is both a general generic term, a mathematical generic term and a mathematical specific term where the most specific meaning is inside the domain of the generic meaning.

                Finally this debate and my argument was NOT about some minuscule discrepancy only apparent with incredibly detailed an precise mathematical analysis.

                My argument was that CAGW obviously fails because it does not even at a gross level have the relationships that fundamental physics requires.

                Anyone with a graphing calculator can work that out for themselves.

              2. Very early on I posted

                E = sT^4

                That is Stefan Boltzman’s law.

                The equation defines the relationship – and the shape of the curve.
                DB’s debate over “exponentially” was from the start idiotic word games. The relationship is E = sT^4 – regardless of what name you use to describe that.

                DB and now you were LITTERALY engaged in pointless word games.

                DB wasted hundreds of posts – in which he made innumerable errors in order to catch me in one or two imprecise remarks in thousands of words,
                All to avoid the FACT that from the start I provided the specific relationship in a mathematical equation that i a fundamental law of physics.

                And you are now Trying the same tactic.

                It may work. It is likely that if I debate you long enough after you make error after error, that I will at some point imperfectly state something.

                But it will not change the fact that the CO2 thesis does not conform to Stefan Boltzman. Therefore CO2 is NOT the driving factor in modern global temperatures.

              3. ATS, you live in an Alice in Wonderland world. Thank goodness you had superiors to keep you on track and prevent you from breaking the mirrors.

        4. *That should have been polynomial grown, not geometric growth (though the latter is also distinct from exponential growth, though in a different way).

  9. The desperate Dems once again grasping for a solution — any solution, even if it won’t work. The criminals — you know, the people who use guns to rob and kill others — aren’t going to care how many “safe spaces” the government declares. A criminal is, by definition, someone who doesn’t follow the law. The only ones these laws will effect are law-abiding citizens who carry guns to protect themselves from criminals — which is becoming more necessary since the Dems have eviscerated the police. It’s becoming more transparent that the Democrats are using this issue to strike out at conservatives, who they assume are the only ones carrying guns. They are wrong.

  10. I would agree that giving certain state governments a “loophole” is an open invitation for them to drive an aircraft carrier through said “loophole”. It would seem the Justice Roberts has not learned that lesson. Of course there is the other side of this approach. That if the laws passed in NY are upheld, it should provide a springboard for hauling in the armed criminal element in massive quantities and RIKERS Island will be bursting at the seams with all of these armed miscreants. Somehow I don’t think the present lawless New York State will use this law to control their crime problem. The state government seems more interested in fighting the Supreme Court than actually doing the hard work of cleaning up the streets. Maybe that’s why businesses and residents are leaving in droves for Florida “gasp” and warmer climes. About the Same for California.
    In military terms the saying is “reinforce success and starve failure”. Some places seem to have a contrarian understanding.

    1. Roberts will be taught by states like NY and CA that the law and constitution to the greatest extent possible REQUIRE bright lines.

      Because there will always be people seeking to destroy the law by creating and expanding grey areas.

      To the greatest extent possible grey areas – FREEDOM belongs with private actors.
      While bright lines and narrow law are required of government.

  11. Let’s get something straight from the beginning; individuals have no gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is a establishment of State’s rights and a curtailment of military equipment and personnel that a State may have during times of peace, while ensuring that a State maintain a militia which is properly regulated and equipped when it’s necessary to call them into actual service by the Union, the united States, in congress assembled, the Established Government Authority.

    What everyone is ignoring is where the 2nd amendment came from, and like nearly every article of the Constitution of the United States, the 2nd amendment came from the Articles of Confederation, and in the case of the 2nd amendment it was copied directly from Article 6 Clause 4;

    “No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.”

    As you can clearly see from this excerpt from the Articles of Confederation, it is clearly defined what the balance of a State’s rights are juxtaposed with the rights of the Union of the States as they are assembled in congress, which is the rights of the States collectively.

    When we actually compare this clause from the Articles of Confederation with the 2nd amendment, we only find that the 2nd amendment is only a condensed form of the clause first established in the Articles of Confederation, but I know how many nay sayers there are out there, so here is the 2nd amendment from the Constitution of the United States for your review and comparison, and remember, the people is the collective people in the State, “The People in their Collective Capacity” assembled as the State’s most numerous legislative branch;

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Everyone at that time owned guns to hunt and for personal protection, so none of these clauses have anything to do with those individual rights to own those types of guns, but when it comes to military equipment, those were heavily controlled by the Union of the States as they are assembled in congress, which is explicitly stated and established in Article 6 Clause 4 of the Articles of Confederation.

    By the way, anyone who believes that the Articles of Confederation were replaced in it’s entirety by the Constitution of the United States, better review both documents, because the Constitution of the United States only amended the Articles of Confederation by the addition of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States to address the disparity which existed between the States in their population and wealth through the principles of republican government which normalized the States by their proportion of the population making the system more equitable and truly joined the States as equals forming a More Perfect Union of the States as they are assembled in congress.

    The only other amendments were superficial, they reduced the number of senators from 2 to 7, to 2, and through offset elections and term lengths they established continuity and stability of government, by dividing the role and responsibilities of the President of the “Committee of the States” they made it possible for the Senate to recess with the full congress, but kept the executive departments under the direction and control of the Senate, to be called into session by the President whenever their consideration was necessary for any issues which may at anytime arise. And they established a permanently seated Supreme Court, which eliminated the necessity to assemble a court whenever a conflict or dispute was made by petition to congress, but even the court, and how the judges would be assembled to hear and decide the dispute, was kept under the control of the States as they are assembled in the Senate.

    For all those who don’t understand the purpose, assembly, and function of the Supreme Court, I would suggest you review Article 9 Clause 2 of the Articles of Confederation where it is established that congress is the last resort on appeal to settle conflicts and disputes between the States, and the States would petition congress for redress of their grievances, where upon receiving the petition, the congress would inform all parties of the dispute and would then assemble a court to hear and decide the dispute. Each State was required to provide a list of 3 persons from their State to form a list of persons for congress to choose from, that list of 39 was reduced to 1 per State by the petitioners until there were 13 remaining, from that 13 no less than 7 and no more than 9 were chosen by lot, then from that number 5 were chosen by lot to hear and decide the dispute.

    This gives us the method and requirements for the permanently seated court, which must be no less than 7 and no more than 9 judges, from which 5 are chosen to hear and decide the dispute by the petitioners by lot, all cases heard by the Supreme Court must come through a petition to Congress by a State, replacements for vacancies in the number of permanently seated judges are made by the President providing a list of qualified candidates to the Senate, at least 5, then the Sates deliberate over those candidates and choose by vote, 1 vote per State, and a majority of the States is necessary to the choice of a suitable person to be appointed to fill the vacancy.

    I think that for a Constitutional Law Professor that a good understanding of our Constitutions principles, and that is plural because the Articles of Confederation was our first Constitution and is still in force except those clauses which were amended by the Constitution of the United States, is required before inappropriate interpretations are made which circumvent or otherwise amend those documents as established, which can only be done by the States governed by Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States, not by congressional statute or Supreme Court decision!

    1. Copied directly you say? You need a remedial English class. I won’t get into your legal “arguments”

    2. “ The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
      – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

      “ Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
      – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

      Fixed it for you

      1. MLC, thank you for those two quotes that clearly put to rest the arguments on this blog from the left.

      2. MLC cites:

        “ The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

        What do you think Sammy would have to say about RPG’s, flame throwers, fully automatic machine guns, and AR-15’s. None of these lethal “arms” existed In 1788.

        1. Too bad history says otherwise.

          The Puckle gun was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle, a British inventor, lawyer and writer.

          The earliest known example of the Girandoni air rifle is currently on display at Stockholm, Sweden’s Livrustkammeran Museum and dates to around 1580. Featured in fairly large calibers, these pneumatic weapons were employed in hunting large game such as deer and wild boar.
          Its full magazine of 16 rounds could be discharged completely in less than 30 seconds.

    3. federalistpapersdeconstructed states, “Everyone at that time owned guns to hunt and for personal protection…”

      Actually, private citizens also owned cannons at that time, and there were no explicit limitations:

      https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/06/30/fact-check-could-individuals-own-cannons-during-revolutionary-war/113951468/

      Cannons, dude. Only good for hunting sloops, white whales, and as a defense against plesiosaurs.

    4. What absolutely nonsense.

      At the time of the drafting of the constitution there was no US military.

      Militias as noted were state militias, But were NOT the equivalent of the modern national guard.

      Most states considered every able bodied male over 16 to be part of the militia, and many required them to own guns.

      You are not going to work arround the 2nd amendment with fake history.

    5. Federalistpapersrrvisited says:

      “Let’s get something straight from the beginning; individuals have no gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States…”

      And when in the fullness of time, say, 50 years from now, the SC has a majority of liberal Justices, is there any doubt the Court will overrule Heller and cite Dobbs’ rationale in so doing, namely, that Heller wrongly implied an individual right to bear arms not unlike the Court in Roe implying a right to privacy?

    6. YOU ARE YOUR MOTHER.

      YOU CAME FROM YOUR MOTHER.

      HOW CAN THAT BE?
      _________________

      “…the 2nd amendment came from the Articles of Confederation,…”

      – fpr
      ___

      The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America;

      your cognitive incoherence and mental mysticism notwithstanding.

  12. I am not a conspiracy theorist but it is becoming clear that there is sinister motive behind the push to disarm us.
    The lack of calls for increased penalties for violations of existing laws, only calls for more restrictions, lead me to think the real purpose is disarmament.
    Why?

    1. Of course. This entire argument has absolutely nothing to do with reducing crime, violence, or restoring public order. Its sole target is to disarm and silence that part of the population that owns firearms for protection. It is axiomatic that the state, once given power, will seek to increaset that power. Have licensed gun owners ever posed a threat to law and order? No. But they do pose a political threat to the Leviathan that inexorably amassaes power at the expense of individual liberty.

  13. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right to arm bears. I have a brown bear neighbor who has a rifle in his cave.

  14. If this reaches the Supreme Court, and the Court sticks to the style of reasoning in Bruen, the question it will ask is whether the sensitive places covered by the law are analogous to those places traditionally regulated to be gun free.

    1. JT should have mentioned and analyzed this key question in his column. Although JT’s analysis of Roberts was interesting, not sure his approach in the ACA 2012 decision and Dobbs is that relevant here.

      1. All of the above decisions were NOT an invitation to those on the left to try to make an exception into the rule.
        All that does is reinforce my argument that grey areas must be removed from law and government to the greatest extent possible and that the law and the courts should strive for bright lines.

        It is bad enough that in the real world we often have difficulty after the fact telling whether a killing is justified or whether it is murder, without also having to deal with law that is unclear about what murder actually is.

        The less clear what is and is not lawful, the more lawless our government is.

  15. Make sure that the governor’s security contingent surrender all their weapons when she is in any of these locations. They can defend her with Smurf guns and beanbags.

  16. Other than constitutional issues (of which there are several), lefties are teaching Americans that laws don’t matter.

    The Bill of Rights and SCOTUS are clear, but lefties are telling Americans that lefty opinions matter more.

    Short step to Americans concluding that they don’t need to obey lefty laws.

    That means that lefty power reaches only as far as there is a cop to enforce those laws.

    Puts us on the road to anarchy (see Portland).

    1. Rather than continuously litigating obvious losing cases.
      If the left believes that we should have rights we do not, or should not have rights that we do,
      They are free to change the constitution.

      The left does not seem to grasp that the legislature passes laws, the executive enforces them, and the courts determine if they are constitutional.

      It is not the role of the executive or judiciary to make laws.
      It is not the role of the legislature or executive to determine what laws are constitutional.
      It is not the role of the courts or the legislature to conduce investigations.

      Each branch has its own role.

  17. Gun regulation is as old as the old west. Across numerous cattle towns of the newly opened western frontier. Abilene, Dodge City, Deadwood, Tucsan to name a few. It was a common practice and established law. Visitors surrendered their firearms at either the local hotel, or constabulary upon entering town. Those who did not comply, very often died. The western lawmans version of play stupid games win stupid prizes. Or F around and find out.

    1. It was also common practice for lawmen to alternate between law enforcement and criminal activity.
      The fact that frontier outposts had draconian ordinances is hardly grounds for giving them constitutional validity.
      Those same towns had laws restricting blacks and native people as well.

      1. Bullseye, ti317… no pun intended. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday are famously perfect examples of your point. As much as I admire Doc for his intelligence and fearlessness, he was a full-on psychopath. He would cheat anybody at cards and shoot them for complaining. As a matter of fact, kind of sounds like General Milley, doesn’t it? Except Milley isn’t that bright.

    2. And yet Contra Biden today as in 1776 and 1787 and for every years since it is legal to own a cannon.

      I would note for the most part the west did not have gun regulations.
      It has private actors – saloons that barred guns, and sherifs that enforced those legitimate event today private rules.

      It is possible that in some places sheriffs took guns as you entered town and returned them when you left.

      they did not bar you from owning them. Nor were Sheriffs enforcing laws.

Leave a Reply