gej: Not familiar with Canadian gun laws? A PAL is "Possession and Accusation License". They come in three flavors: unrestricted (most rifles and shotguns including most "assault weapons", restricted (usually handguns), and prohibited (usually grandfathered pre-1977 machine guns).
Well pot, calling me black are you? My lack of knowledge of a canadian 'PAL' is countered by your misinformation about it. Your explanation of a 'possession & accusation license' for PAL, threw me so I googled and you have gotten another footstick comparable to your famous coordination does not prove causation. The PAL is not a license to kill after accusation, johnston.
Abracadabrawiki: Currently only one type of licence is available to new applicants, the possession-acquisition licence (PAL). .... (quick johnston, call it a typo like you did before).
The handgun restriction is probably why only 5% of canadian national gunstock is handguns (or was it 95% of canadian gun owners owned longguns, or in households. eh).
In the early aughts I think it was I visited a friend in Ottawa (elmvale actually) who had what he called a FOID (f-owners ID), and had a pistol, whereas I was an american who owned no guns, so we had a joke about role reversal amongst allies.
Spent last summer 2 months quebec, 2 weeks ontario (disgust of trump elected a goodly reason) so I'm not a stranger to canada, but their gun laws are as difficult to master as america's. (Turns out it isn't that easy to relocate to canada, especially at my age.)
As far as you rebutting Justice Burger (my signature line) by citing kopel, I trust Burger knew what he was saying, rather than putting any credibility into a far rightwing gunnut like dave kopel, who just gishes out a great big GISH GALLOP with tedious & generally irrelevant factoids & non sequiturs to rebut. A gish gallop tries to snow people into thinking that such a large number of factoids & trivia must be overwhelming evidence of some point, which when scrutinized the gish gallop turns into a house of collapsing cards.
kopel's argument: Unfortunately, {scotus 1939 decision} Miller was written by Justice James McReynolds, arguably one of the worst Supreme Court Justices of the twentieth century.
Huh, what kinda argument is this above? Using this criteria isn't heller wrong since clarence thomas is (inarguably) one of the worst supreme court justices of the 20th & 21 centuries? Change heller, 4 - 4 tie.
kopel cont'd: The opinion nowhere explicitly says that the Second Amendment does (or does not guarantee) an individual right
Evidently kopel missed this part: With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html
amicus brief by justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of {2ndA}, the contention was summarily rejected as follows:.. The second amendment to the Constitution .. {2ndA} refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm
Then kopel, like scalia, or perhaps teaching scalia, inexplicably cites justice joseph story (circa 1830): And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that, among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Duh, kopel & scalia need their thinking caps reset. Story clearly says that to keep the people 'DULY ARMED', it is not practicable without some ORGANIZATION, which would be the militia organization. If 2ndA were an individual RKBA per scalia/kopel the people would be kept duly armed WITHOUT the militia. Sheesh, take a logic course or something kopel, cause you two stink at it. Oh wait, scratch scalia, he dead, sniff.
= new reply since forum marked as read
