Just Shoot Me. And Hit Me. Stupid Stats, Vol MCMXX...

CBS News leads the Dash to Dumb in their coverage of the Aurora shooting:

(CBS News) The well-armed shooter in the Aurora movie theater massacre had a hit ratio twice what a police officer might achieve engaging with armed assailants in a street setting.

That suggests, says CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, that the suspect - who is believed to have planned his assault with precision -  practiced shooting prior to the attack on the theater audience last Friday.

First, it would hardly be surprising if we eventually learn the shooter practiced somewhere. However, the statistical foundation presented here is a bit sandy:

"Here's an individual who we see kind of lolling in court but who went into that theater, actually shooting and hitting with bullets more than 52 people of the 70 injured," said Miller on "CBS This Morning." "Here's a guy who went in with what we think was about 100 rounds; that gives him a 50 percent hit ratio.

"From law enforcement, when you go on the range and you're shooting at a paper target - it is standing still and waits for you - that's a 90 to 94 percent hit ratio in a lot of places. In combat shooting in the street, police officers often hit in ranges of 21 to 25 percent of their targets."

Let's accept that street fighting figure for the moment (the NY Times compares the LAPD and the NYPD and is closer to the low 30s, but whatever.)

First, the police officers in street incidents were firing at a small number of humans (presumably, "one" was the most common number of targets); the Aurora shooter was firing into a large crowd. Even without training, I bet I could hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces. Similarly, I imagine that the Auurora shooter had plenty of "hits" where he missed his aim point but hit a different person downrange. If I recall correctly, people in adjoining theatres were hit by bullets passing through the wall - were these really well-aimed shots that boosted his hit rate?

Secondly, the shooter used a shotgun and a rifle. Surely one shotgun blast or one rifle round into a crowd could hit multiple targets. Would a bullet that wounded three people give the shooter a hit rate (on that shot) of 300%? Do police officers often (or ever?) fire in situations where a hit rate of 200% or 300% is possible?

Did the shooter practice? Quite likely. Do these stats demonstrate that? No.

Comments

[Extraneus]

Everybody see Carney unable to answer the question "What is the capital of Israel?"

[pops]

A study of school attacks showed the number of dead and wounded was drastically lower in cases where someone else had access to a firearm.

[centralcal]

Extraneus: Unable to or unwilling to?

[pops]

All Romney did was quote reports from Britain own newspapers and testimony before the Parliment.
They just didn't like an American saying what their own press had been reporting.

Maybe Romney should have presented them a mix tape of his best speeches, or perhaps a collection of DVDs that you can't play in England.

[Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you!]

Just to put a fly in the ointment, the resident lesbian's best friend is a straight man.

[Threadkiller]

To put another fly in the ointment; is desire to marry a nine year old genetic?

[Clarice]

rse, I blogged your latest to American Thinker which will be running it. It's largely a long overdue plug for your blogsite.

[henry]

rse, yeah the big IT CEOs want to implement 1984. The owner of a small island has been pushing to eliminate cash currency since the 90s. I wonder how much of the "cloud" hype is designed to eliminate independent data sets held by independent entrepreneurs? The local data center is a big fly in the collective ointment. As a bonus, our favorite vendor owned everything (hardware, operating systems, applications all available only as a lease) until the consent decree in 1968, they want their monopoly back or as close as they can get to it.

[NK]

cboldt@804-- Presser was cited by DC in opposing the 6 plaintiffs 2d Amendment challenge to DC's gun laws. What Heller did -- yes for the FIRST TIME EVER-- was unequivocally end the debate over whether the 2d Amendment was an individual liberty interest, or a State power to maintain a militia. Presser and a reconstruction case Cruikshank were in effect early 14th amendment incorporation doctrine cases, and in both cases the SCOTUS ruled that the 2d Amendment acted only as a bar against Congressional statutes, and it did not bar state statutes regarding possession and use of firearms in connection with state militia laws. In Presser a Commie in Chicago organized his worker pals into a 'militia' to march up and down with their rifles (presumably to push back against the employer Pinkertons.) Cook County and Illinois barred them from doing so asserting thye weren't a 'licensed' militia recognized by the State or County. The Commies pushed back saying they had a 1st and 2d Amendment right to assemble, and they didn't need no stinkin' Illinois license. The Commies lost-- the 2nd Amendment didn't bar Illinois from regulating militias, because the 2nd Amendment didn't restrict state action -- it only restricted Congress. The SCOTUS dicta you quote from goes to the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment sovereign state reservation of rights. That's why DC cited Presser against the gun owner plaintiffs. In Heller (2008), Scalia writing for the SCOTUS majority did not overule Presser or Cruikshank, because no state statute was involved, but the SCOTUS ended any ambiguity by holding the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to bear arms, and the individual right was independent from the collective State power to maintain a militia. 2 years later in MacDonald (2010) the SCOTUS inevitably "incorporated" the 2nd Amendment individual liberty right unambiguously recognized for the first time in Heller and applied it against the State of Illinois. Last night when Ig reminded me of MacDonald I went back and read Alito's decision-- MacDonald maintains 'selective incorporation' of the Bill of Rights against State statutes. Thomas's concurring opinion would eliminate incorporation all together and impose ALL Bill of Rights individual liberty rights against the States through the privilges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendnment. Wouldn't that invalidate the 10th Amendment? But Thomas's opinion is not the holding of MacDonald. Anyways, Presser had to be distinguished in Heller in order for SCOTUS to rule that the 2nd is an individual liberty right.

[jpt]

So Mitt told those snaggle toothed limeys the truth and now they are crying about it. Good. At least it gave Cameron a chance to pull his nose out of Obuma's crack for a minute to complain. Hopefully our athletes will be safe.

USA! USA! USA!

[Captain Hate]

rse, have you gotten any pushback from your blog? You're slattering a lot of sacred cows and have to be regarded as a threat to the drones that feed off the rotted carcasses. Although maybe you aren't regarded as currently as high exposure as this guy: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120726/NEWS0605/120729690/-1/news0605

[Dublindave]

"So Mitt told those snaggle toothed limeys the truth..."

And then he walked it back!

The British Star's front page headline today is; MITT THE TWIT!!!!

Ha ha Mitt the twit.....that's so fuckin funny...Mitt the twit lolol...

[NK]

2nd Qtr GDP 1.5%-- it will be revised down late October. The Commerce report is interesting. Obama's 'recovery' that according to 'Bam worked 2009-2011 was WEAKER than earlier reports, revised down to 5.8% over 10 quarters, also interesting is that Christmas 2011 US consumers were optimistic, as the 4th qtr 2011 GDP growth was revised UP to 4.1% This is a disasterous report for 'Bam, it shows the shortlived optimism US consumers had in late 2011 was crushed by higher gas and food prices in winter-spring 2012, and the continuing jobs debacle. US consumers are in a terrible mood-- 'Bam pays the price in November.

[Captain Hate]

Any estimate on how deep in the red Great Britain is gonna be on these games? Or how bad of a bath China took (not that they'd be honest about the numbers)?

[Captain Hate]

Thanks a lot for posting that picture of that stinking mooooooooooslim and his child bride, daddy. Now we'll never be rid of the pedophile trolls.

[pagar]

"is desire to marry a nine year old genetic?
TK, If the US DOJ gets it's way, you won't be able to complain about such things. Of course, those who want to will still be able to complain and demonstrate against Christian marriage. My guess is it would be the among the 1st decrees published if Obama is reelected.

[Captain Hate]

The invisible hand smacks major douchetool around: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577551363474742358.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

[Dublindave]

Thank God the First Lady, Michelle Obama will be leading the US delegation tonight.

Leave it to the Democrats to restore diplomacy, class, Style and intelligence to the reputation of the United states.

[NK]

DD= Drunk again. have some coffee, eat something, give your liver a break.

[Captain Hate]

Ugh, Laura Ingraham has WaPo "conservative" Jennifer Rubin on. She chirps as much as a female version of Tweety.

[hit and run]

Headline in Der Spiegel the day after Obama's Berlin speech in 2008: Obama's Berlin Speech: People of the World, Look at Me!

[hit and run]

Restoring "diplomacy, class, Style and intelligence":

[NK]

Hit-- thanks for that photo. Mooshelle is just an unhappy bitter woman. Yes I know, it's a photo of a moment in time, but that image sums up her entire resume in public life.

[Jim Ryan]

I feel uncomfortable about judging another cultures just because it wants to rape girls or slit my throat. See, I hate Western Civilization, and putting down another culture greatly reduces the thrill of that hatred. So, yeah, not gonna judge another culture as bad.

[NK]

Jane- does the Flynn endorsement help Brown? does the BeanTown mayor sticking his foot in Chik-fil-a help brown?

[Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you!]

NK,

Beats me. I think it should help with the Irish Catholic vote - I'll ask Dick, he would know better than I. It feels like Brown is winning this thing. But I don't know.

Latest podcast of FWDAJ is up.

[Ignatz]

Let's give WeeDavey a little credit here.
After all, what has the little creep got to work with?
Trillion dollar deficits, 8.2% unemployment, an economy grinding to a halt, several million fewer jobs than when Barry took office, the Middle East being taken over by the only crowd worse than what was already there, abject failure in Afghanistan, a deteriorating Iraq, a resurgent Russia and allies who see us as untrustworthy and weak and getting weaker.
What else could the poor, besotted, little dope dwell on but irrelevant minutiae?

[Ignatz]

BTW do the people of London have the good sense to pull that mangled roller coaster down they erected in the center of the Olympics site the minute the games are over?

[NK]

Ig-- I'll add one thing to your 1004, DD and the other lefty hoodlums have something to look forward to, come January they can complain about everything wrong the Repub POTUS, House and Senate are doing. And when Ginsburg retires (health) they can scream how the new conservative Justice will lead to fascism. They have lots to look forward to.

Ig-- if you're interested in ConLaw, re-read MacDonald and Thomas's concurring opinion. I admire Thomas's commitment to individual liberty-- he is the strongest libertarian on the Court, but 'priviliges and immunities' trumps all? I wonder.

[NK]

London2012? I like Lord Mayor Boris Johnson he's a flake. I also like Danny Boyle (opening ceremony producer) his films are interesting. But, please, with these guys involved, London 2012 will be drunker than DD on a fullout binge. Who are the major sponsors? Johnnie Walker and Stoli?

[Mark Folkestad]

I'm in a grumpy mood this morning. Gay is a wonderful word that has been ruined by the modern association. My best friend from grade school, who revealed his homosexual orientation about twenty years ago, was gay/light-hearted as a kid, but after contracting HIV and dealing with a myriad of problems, is no longer gay (in the classic sense).

Troop is not a synonym for soldier. It is a term for a military or scouting unit of undefined size. A troop of soldiers, a troop of cavalry or a troop of Boy/Girl Scouts. Trooper is the equivalent of a soldier. Unfortunately, even some military spokesman are using corrupted language. I've heard even top brass pronounce "cache" to rhyme with "sashay", not as the proper "cash". Grrrrr.

Chik-Fil-A has only two franchises here in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. One is behind the security barriers at the airport. My cousin and I are going to the other one, just east of the University of Minnesota's main campus, in a few days.

I've known a few lesbians who were very friendly with males, and a few who would put all of us men in death camps if they could. It would be difficult for me to make any generalizations, but I do find the lesbian hostility I see to be disturbing.

The Second Amendment is more than a guarantor of individual rights. It was designed to also safeguard our nation against tyranny. Tinker with it at your own risk.

[Dublindave]

Let's give WeeDavey a little credit here.
After all, what has the little creep got to work with?
Trillion dollar deficits, 8.2% unemployment, an economy grinding to a halt, several million fewer jobs than when Barry took office, the Middle East being taken over by the only crowd worse than what was already there, abject failure in Afghanistan, a deteriorating Iraq, a resurgent Russia and allies who see us as untrustworthy and weak and getting weaker.

Yet your candidate is the one who is constantly on the defensive having to explain himself and his positions.

Ignatz,if you're happy with Romney's political instincts and you think he's a stunningly brilliant political opponent, then who am I to argue.

Congratulations, you got a real winner on your hands.

[jpt]

"Leave it to the Democrats to restore diplomacy, class, Style and intelligence to the reputation of the United states."

We should be able to append a laugh track to some posts. Or that drum rimshot sound "ba-dum-bum-CHING".

[NK]

MarkF-- good morning, those are fascinating observations. As many people indulged yesterday about Lesbians and men, I'll kick my ancdote in. Some of the most fascinating and titilating conversations I ever had were with drunk lesbians. At least 2 of them were Penthouse Forum worthy of, "I know you won't believe this BUT...."

[NK]

DD-- that's the spirit, you're previewing your 2013 trolling. There will be lots for you to complain about, plus the Legacy Media will pitch in by hyping every little gaffe, every petty corruption -- as opposed to the past 4 years where they've buried ever major scandal and moronic 'Bam miscue. So please, start practicing-- you're gonna need it.

[Dublindave]

FROM THE TELEGRAPH;Carl Lewis, the winner of nine Olympic gold medals, has hit out at Mitt Romney's gaffe-filled day in London, saying "seriously, some Americans just shouldn't leave the country".

ROFLMAO.......oh man,that's the funniest one so far....

[Ranger]

Yet your candidate is the one who is constantly on the defensive having to explain himself and his positions.

"The private sector is doing just fine."

"You didn't build that"

"We tried our plan - and it worked."

[cboldt]

-- Presser was cited by DC in opposing the 6 plaintiffs 2d Amendment challenge to DC's gun laws. --

Also cited by numerous federal courts, using the dicta that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the states (and therefore states may infringe the right to keep and bear arms). Obviously, those courts managed to overlook the opposing dicta, that states may not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

I see Presser as a parade permit case, where Presser said that he didn't need no stinkin' permit, if his parade had guns. The court said parade permits are not a RKBA issue, ergo, are not a 2nd amendment issue. Parade permits are not unconstitutional, they provide a means to keep public order.

[NK]

Carl Lewis? Carl effin' Lewis? seriously? you need more practice than I ever imagined.

[narciso]

'So twenty grams of chocolate rations' that was the original promise right;

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/27/breaking-q2-gdp-1-5/

[JM Hanes]

Dub:

"Yet your candidate is the one who is constantly on the defensive having to explain himself and his positions"

Now, that there is all kinds a' funny, when your candidate has just spent his own campaign into the red buying airtime for a month of walking unprompted cats back.

[Ignatz]

--Yet your candidate is the one who is constantly on the defensive having to explain himself and his positions.--

My mistake. It's Mittens who has had to explain over and over what 'The private sector is doing fine; you didn't build that, my plan worked, etc' really mean.

--Ignatz,if you're happy with Romney's political instincts and you think he's a stunningly brilliant political opponent, then who am I to argue.--

What, in anything I posted regarding Barry's immense incompetence indicated that, you stupid sod?
Mittens is an affable, fairly competent, fairly boring moderate, middle of the roader. It his great good fortune to be facing a bumbling, thin skinned, talentless, arrogant, know it all who is so poorly served by sycophants like you that he'll never know what an incompetent, out of touch buffoon he appears to us non sycophants.

--Congratulations, you got a real winner on your hands.--

Unfortunately for you, because you have a real loser on your hands, come November you will quite probably be proven correct.

[Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you!]

NK: Here is Dick's answer: Not much he is a gad fly and a South Boston conservative Ronald Reagan democrat…but he is a has been long time hanger on …his party and clout is long gone…so it also may even help Warren as much as it helps Brown…many of us have written him off….

[NK]

cboldt-- you were wrong about Heller and Presser, no biggie. Heller was a huge case in my mind, and I had forgotten about MacDonald in 2010 until Ig reminded me last night. If you have some time, re-read MacDonald 2010. When I did last night, I was amazed how revealing that decision is. for instance, these SCOTUS characters are just loath to reverse ANY decision. They go to ridiculous lengths to distinguish rather than reverse. Roberts' machinations in Obamacare is the latest example. but MacDonald involves the Slaughterhouse Cases and privileges and immunities. If we get a Repub POTUS and another conservative Justice, these things may become important. You may find it interesting late night reading.

[dublindave]

Carl Lewis? Carl effin' Lewis? seriously? you need more practice than I ever imagined.

Romney even managed to piss off the British secret service by telling the world that he'd been meeting with them,THE ONE THING YOU DON'T DO. So much for 'Foreign policy credentials'......ah man I'm laughing so hard.......he's blowing M16''s cover and revealing sensitive information along with insulting an entire nation.

What's he going to do in Poland lololol??????

Meanwhile,the First lady is just wowing the British people with her style,elegance and energy.

[Mark Folkestad]

NK, ages ago, I asked one of my subordinates if she wanted to go to a rarely-produced Ibsen play at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, on a platonic basis. I just felt awkward "going stag" to something like that, and I not been actively dating for a while. Mavis said that she'd love to, but then said that her significant other would never understand, especially since she had to admit that she was attracted to me. I didn't find out until a couple of years later that she was a lesbian, and her partner looked more than an NFL lineman than an actual lineman. And I discovered that the partner was one of the extreme man-haters.

[dublindave]

Ah man i'm done...i've never laughed so hard......I gotta go to work now...Jesus christ.......that's just sooo funny...

[Mark Folkestad]

Oops. It should be "HAD not been actively dating." Two double-strength mugs of coffee and a Diet Mt. Dew haven't yet counteracted a night with only three hours of sleep.

[NK]

"Meanwhile,the First lady is just wowing the British people with her style,elegance and energy." The Brits saw Eva Peron in 1946, I don't think they'll be impressed with a fatassed 2012 version. Mooshelle photoed next to Kate Middleton? There's a great visual for your side... jeez.

[Mark Folkestad]

DuDa actually has skills that someone is willing to pay him for? Going to work? More than being paid to troll here?

[cboldt]

-- you were wrong about Heller and Presser, no biggie. --

Says you. Others can read the blockquote from Presser and decide for themselves if the Presser court said that the RKBA attaches to individuals, rather than to the state.

You said Heller was the first time SCOTUS ever said the RKBA attaches to individuals, and I find that to be wrong.

[jpt]

Romney is not afraid to call out the limeys out on their well publicized security deficiencies.
Obama is afraid to discuss gun control and is busy driving the US economy in to a recession.

A win win for Romney.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting 49% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%.
Romney’s five-point advantage is the largest enjoyed by either candidate in just over a month."

[Captain Hate]

Mark, more like his boner pill wore off after a few hours of spanking it to the picture daddy put up. Or thinking about Sandusky's victims.

[rse]

Thanks Clarice. I just noticed because I was greeted with an announcement from the diva's high school wanting parent donations to cover the cost of the training several of the teachers got this summer in Vail Colorado. The template that was implicated in Columbine and merely changed names afterward. I was off seeing if the person involved with the training was who I thought and it was. An article he wrote in 1999 is back up on the initial page of a non terrible specific search so I was working on that.

What a nice surprise after that very sad one. This template has never been used anywhere that a parent knows what I know. I am going to let that aspect be for a month or so but I do think parents have a right to know what gains lucrative promotions in ed these days.

CH-because I have few email subscribers and lots of people prefer to contact me by email I think the assumption is no one reads me. I suspect anyone concerned wants to avoid Streisand Effect of stimulating interest. Plus I don't talk about people, I talk about ideas and why they trouble me. I only use people's names when it is relevant to grounding the discussion in the likelihood of implementation. The book helps me understand this and the relationships. I can tell you stories I know I will do in future. Mostly I see what comes across that is current and try to attract attention from people interested in the political, economic, or AGW angle. None of them have really been looking in the direction they should be worried about.

I also find that this is troubling enough people need time to adjust to the outer layers and think about it.

[hit and run]

MWoww'ing the British people with her style,elegance and energy:

[NK]

MarkF-- don't worry, DD doesn't really have a job it's just the DTs.
Lesbians and Straights: back in '83 I went on a date (with a lady-- a hetero lady) and we were walking down a certain street in Park Slope Bklyn that was the home to the Lesbian community that had moved out of Greenwich and East Villages so they could have their own place separate from gay men. Smith College flags waved proudly in the bright spring sunshine and breeze. As soon as we started down the block, the gals hung out of open windows and stoop doorways hollering at us, particularly at the young lady. I've been a guest on USN combat ships, worked with NYC union carpenters and construction workers and played HS and college football-- I never heard language like that -- before or since. So MarkF you lucked out being turned down.

[hit and run]

I gotta go to work now
Posted by: dublindave | July 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM

You go to work at 4 pm in Dublin on a Friday? I'm wondering what kind of job you wish us to believe you currently hold.

[jimmyk]

You go to work at 4 pm in Dublin on a Friday?

That's when the boys get out of school.

[Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you!]

Dudu,

If you are judging candidates by how much they piss off foreign governments you better switch parties quickly.

[NK]

To anyone interested in the Right to Bear Arms, the Bill of Rights, and individual liberty v. State action I do urge people to read the Presser, Cruikshank(sp?), Heller and MacDonald decisions-- in reading them last night I thought they were vitally important for issues ranging from gun ownership rights to Obamacare. And please, read the decisions, not just block quotes, the facts and context of each case is important. We live in a Constitutional republic, so the Constitution is our highest law-- personally I think it needs to be better understood by voters.

[JM Hanes]

Dub:

"Romney even managed to piss off the British secret service by telling the world that he'd been meeting with them,THE ONE THING YOU DON'T DO."

I'll play!

Even your candidate's freakin' staffers are leaking top-secret info about active clandestine operations overseas, THE ONE THING YOU DON'T DO, because, oddly enough, it gets your own people killed.

Let's count the folks who still believe your candidate is stunningly brilliant, shall we? There, that was easy.

[cboldt]

-- To anyone interested in the Right to Bear Arms, the Bill of Rights, and individual liberty v. State action I do urge people to read the Presser, Cruikshank(sp?), Heller and MacDonald decisions --

US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), too. In that case, SCOTUS held that it was unconstitutional (against the 2nd amendment) to levy a tax on the purchase of a weapon that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," or "is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Lower courts misconstrue the snot out of that case, too, just like they did for decades with the Presser case. There's your judicial integrity for you, on full and open display.

[Janet]

Love the FLOTUS pictures.

Hey, does "To put another fly in the ointment" = "Speaking of magic beans"?

DISCUSS

[hit and run]

Obama showing how Democrats restore diplomacy, class, Style and intelligence to the reputation of the United states:

[Janet]

Bumper sticker of the day - h/t Stephanie

[Janet]

We need to pray for Madonna...seriously, something isn't right. Maybe pray for the guy in the chair too...

[NK]

CBOLDT@11:12 agree completely with that. I left Miller out because I thought it was less constitutionally significant in light of Heller. Miller and Presser were twisted for decades by the constitutional 'scholars' like Tribe and TV producer Norman Lear to indoctrinate americans that the 2nd Amendment was not a individual liberty-- it was strictly a collective 'regulated militia' right. Heller finally corrected that propaganda. Everyone should read them all.

[maryrose]

It's Friday and I am ready to vent.
If Mitt's comments get the Brits to tighten security more ,that;s good.
2nd. 1.5 is terrible and all Messnbc wants to do is change the subject from that and you didn't build that.
3rd. Give it a rest about Paterno=he is not the perpetrator and he is not a pedo. Sandusky is your man. Focus on him.

[cboldt]

-- I left Miller out because I thought it was less constitutionally significant in light of Heller. --

Scalia effectively rewrote / reversed Miller, in Heller. The new rule is that if an unconstitutional ban stands long enough to become long standing, it becomes constitutional.

Courts have refused to seriously entertain an argument that Miller stands for what it says, and in a recent case (Hamblen, IIRC), refused to address the disconnect between Miller and Heller.

[Jim,MtnViewCA,USA]

"Meanwhile,the First lady is just wowing the British people with her style,elegance and energy."
That one is a keeper :)

[Ignatz]

It's interesting to note that in Miller there was no argument presented in favor of the defendant's position.
Here is a short readable synopsis of the strange aspects of the Miller case.

[NK]

Miller/Heller/MacDonald-- as Ig pointed out last night, we are now in the war of attrition where DC city counsel, Congress Cities and the States try to legislate gun restrictions around Heller. Heller clearly states the individual right is not unlimited and traditional taxes, registration and ownership restrictions are not invalidated by Heller. What does that mean in practice? it's gonna be a long haul. it will replay school busing, prayer and school and abortion restrictions dancing angels on heads of pins.

[centralcal]

"Meanwhile,the First lady is just wowing the British people with her style,elegance and energy."

Indeed!

[cboldt]

-- Miller and Presser were twisted for decades by the constitutional 'scholars' like Tribe and TV producer Norman Lear to indoctrinate americans that the 2nd Amendment was not a individual liberty --

The had the Circuit Courts of Appeal on their side, too. No Circuit cited Presser for the proposition that the RKBA was an individual right, they all cited it for the proposition that a state COULD prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.

Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States.

Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005)

This was applied in the nunchucks case, Maloney v. Cuomo, decided in 2009, with Sotomayer signing on. Although, the Bach v. Pataki language is really striking, in light of the Presser Court saying "the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms."

[NK]

Ig-- that Dr Brown letter was spot on, and he predicted Heller (7 years later) pretty well. Unfortunatly, for the next few years the sharp lawyers on both sides of gun rights will litigate the crap out of this stuff. For serious people (like yourself), it will be a sorry spectacle to watch.

[JM Hanes]

NK:

"We live in a Constitutional republic, so the Constitution is our highest law-- personally I think it needs to be better understood by voters."

One of the pivotal distinguishing features of our Constitution is its simplicity (unlike, say, the inscrutable, omnibus compendium of regulations designed by our Euro cousins). The Framers outlined an entire system of government and provided a succinct list of essential principles, in an elegant document that any citizen can fit into his pocket -- and many do. There is no more quintessentially American expression than, "I know my rights!" Despite two centuries of shifting SCOTUS jurisprudence saying, "Oh no you don't," Joe the Plumber still has a better grasp on that than a David Brooks does. I'm not too sanguine about your reading of our rights, either.

[Captain Hate]

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I think it would be a nice gesture if Ann Romney could ride Mooch in dressage.

[Mark Folkestad]

NK, my subordinate was a major babe. All the guys were going nuts over her, but only I even remotely came close to getting her to go out. I wouldn't have worried about any hassles from her, but her butch girlfriend could have snapped me in two like a twig, and I was pretty sturdy and strong back then. As far as hostility goes, I was walking along Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis one night with two of my cousins when five homosexuals came out of one of "their" bars, and although none of us did or said anything provocative, they taunted us "straights" and threatened to kill us if we didn't leave "their" area. All three of us were pleased that we got threats instead of come-ons.

[Ignatz]

Was going to write, LOL, CH, but that calls for a ROFLMAO.

[Mark Folkestad]

CH, your 12:17 got me laughing way too hard!

[Extraneus]

And please, read the decisions, not just block quotes, the facts and context of each case is important. We live in a Constitutional republic, so the Constitution is our highest law-- personally I think it needs to be better understood by voters.

The decisions of black-robed political appointees are not the constitution. They may be our highest law, but they are merely accidents of the intersections of presidential politics and judicial lifespans. Totally different things.

[NK]

JMHanes-- hey you don't have to sweat over my reading of the Constitution, I have no authority over anybody. However, in our Constitutional Republic the SCOTUS does have that authority, so we all need to read carefully what they decide, because like it or not, the Constitution means what they say it means.

[AliceH]

I used to know how to write macros. I need one that automatically submits a comment saying "I agree - very well sais!" whenever JMH posts anything.

[AliceH]

*said* (error would have been corrected in UAT)

[Extraneus]

I would have appreciated a warning on that Madonna link, Janet. I mean, who wants to see that??? Anybody, young or old, man or woman, gay or straight? I hope I don't have nightmares tonight.

[NK]

Ex@12:32-- that's been a common comment thread- screw the SCOTUS I know what the Constitution really means. The Constitution is implemented by SCOTUS decisions. It's not implemented by our individual opinions of what it means. If you don't like SCOTUS review, change that by Constitutional Amendment, or the election process for future appontments, and if all of those political means fail you-- start a rebellious insurrection. But until then, I'll have to go by the SCOTUS decisions.

[AliceH]

--I'll have to go by the SCOTUS decisions.--

The rest of us seem to be comfortable independently finding some SCOTUS decisions rightly decided and others not rightly decided without feeling the need to call for the destruction of the institution.

[Extraneus]

You do that, NK, but please stop lecturing us about how the constitution means what they say it means. That's pure bullshit. You're talking about the law, not the constitution.

[jimmyk]

I would have appreciated a warning on that Madonna link

I would say "Madonna" is warning enough.

[NK]

Frankly it's pretty simple-- when Justice Roberts and 4 other Justices rule that the Commerce Clause does not permit the individual mandate, that's what the Commerce Clause means. When Justice Roberts and 4 other Justices rule that the individual mandate can be enacted by Congress under the Article I taxing and general welfare power, that's what the Article I tax and welfare power means. Disagree as much as you want, but the Constitution means what 5 Justices say it means. Those are the rules of our republic.

[AliceH]

Gosh. I had no idea that the SC was infallible. Why do any justices ever bother to write dissenting opinions, I wonder. Must be just an ego thing.

[boris]

"That's pure bullshit. You're talking about the law, not the constitution"

The might makes right interpretation of the constitution ignores two things. It's not a contract between the 3 branches of government, it's a contract between the people and the government and as such if a serious disagreement developes as to what that contract says then it is time for a new contract.

The other is that the government can't legally use its standing army to defend itself from determined citizens armed as described in the 2nd. And IMO any attempt to do so would fail.

[NK]

Not infallible-- but they are the final deciders right or wrong. we've had 'Penumbral Emanications' for almost 40 years, and they just made that up.

[boris]

"but they are the final deciders right or wrong"

Only when the people are more or less evenly divided on an issue.

[Ignatz]

--Frankly it's pretty simple-- when Justice Roberts and 4 other Justices rule that the Commerce Clause does not permit the individual mandate, that's what the Commerce Clause means.--

True as far as it goes. You could help the discussion along by explaining that you mean we are legally bound by their decisions even when their ruling is clearly profoundly contrary to the actual words, meaning and intent of the Constitution, not that the Constitution now means the opposite of what it used to.

It is also true that we are not bound to let them run roughshod over the Constitution because the Founders wisely gave Congress the power to proscribe the courts' jurisdiction, a power the court concedes even if others disingenuously don't.

[NK]

The prohibition of using the standing army in the territorial US is statutory, not constitutional-- Posse Comitatus Act. For what it's worth IMO, the Federal Powers in the Constitution are 'negative' powers, meaning unless the constitution gives the Fed government power, it has no such power. As such-- rebellion and overthrow of the Fed government is constitutional if the Feds tyrannically grab power never consented to by the People. I hope that stays an academic question though.

[NK]

Ig-- as usual you say things better than I do-- just becasue the SCOTUS is the final decider doesn't make them "Right." As far as jurisdiction, the SCOTUS has specific Art III jurisdiction, plus Marbury so, there is constitutional jurisdiction the Congress can't touch.

[JM Hanes]

NK:

"...like it or not, the Constitution means what they say it means."

Temporarily.

"The Constitution is implemented by SCOTUS decisions."

Not only does SCOTUS have no power to implement anything, they only have the opportunity to adjudicate constitutionality in the miniscule number of cases which may happen to land on their front stoop, after years, if not decades, of real Constitutional harm have been done. Indeed, both actual individual harm and judicial error (!) are the sine qua non predicates for appeal to the Court. Combine that with the issues of standing which have derailed many a worthy legal challenge, and you have what I consider the greatest flaw in our judicial system.

I'd also suggest that it's entirely possible to understand every jot of a SCOTUS opinion, and, as Scalia & Thomas often do, simultaneously find it constitutionally incomprehensible.

AliceH:

LOL! I'd like to think there's an App for that, but there doesn't seem to be much developer interest in producing one.

[AliceH]

Posted by: JM Hanes | July 27, 2012 at 01:25 PM

"I agree - very well said!"

[Ignatz]

--As far as jurisdiction, the SCOTUS has specific Art III jurisdiction, plus Marbury so, there is constitutional jurisdiction the Congress can't touch.--

The SCOTUS has limited original jurisdiction as granted by the constitution;

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Marbury not only has no effect on what limits on jurisdiction congress may describe for SCOTUS or any other federal court, only on its powers related to those cases it has jurisdiction of, but it implicitly recognized congress's powers in this area by denying the right of Marbury to even bring a claim to the SCOTUS as an unconstitutional expansion of SCOTUS's original jurisdiction.