Judge To Conservatives Who Tried Closing Abortion Clinics: What If We Did That To Gun Stores?

[KamaAina]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/05/judge-to-conservatives-who-want-to-close-abortion-clinics-what-if-we-did-the-same-thing-for-gun-stores/

Taking it further, Thompson presents a thought experiment which may be my new favorite way of countering anti-abortion rhetoric from this day forward. It goes like this:

What if, instead of abortion, the issue were gun sales. Let’s say in an effort to bypass the Constitution and curb gun ownership, the state or federal government passed a law that effectively shut down every gun store in the state but two.

“The defenders of this law would be called upon to do a heck of a lot of explaining — and rightly so in the face of an effect so severe,” Thompson points out. “Similarly, in this case, so long as the Supreme Court continues to recognize a constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any regulation that would, in effect, restrict the exercise of that right to only Huntsville and Tuscaloosa should be subject to the same skepticism.”

Remember, even the discussion about gun control is typically met with grandiose, overblown rhetoric about governmental tyranny and something, something cold, dead, hands. The idea that conservatives would allow their gun shops to be closed down simply because gun control activists don’t agree with their ownership of them is unthinkable.

[spanone]

1. k&R...

[Calista241]

2. Lol. Good argument.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Logic will be the thing that finally ends the gun nut madness and gun terrorism in America.

The EFFECT of laws can speak directly to the intent behind that law, irrespective of direct evidence of intent.

If the effect of a law is to make a right virtually useless, then the law was intended to do so...and is itself illegal.

As said by SCOTUS regarding discriminatory housing.

[NickB79]

9. This is about abortion providers, not guns

The judge used the gun store example as a logical exercise, not a literal one.

And if he DID state the gun store example as a literal one, it would bolster, not hinder, gun owners because the argument is AGAINST shutting down almost all said stores, just as his argument is against shutting down all but a few abortion providers.

Sheesh.....

[Fred Sanders]

14. I get it, the practical results of the illogical argument of the pro-birth, anti-life crowd is being put in a context a gun lover can

understand...quite brilliant when you understand it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Sorry, Fred- the decision didn't say what you'd like it to:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/alabortion08042014.pdf

...This court, as a trial court, should not be in the business of picking and choosing which Supreme Court-recognized right to enforce or in deciding whether
to enforce a right strongly or only somewhat, based on this court’s independent assessment of the legal or moral wisdom behind the acknowledgment of that right. While
this trial court may have the license, if not the obligation, to contribute its proverbial “two cents” to the discussion of whether the law ought to be different,
that voicing should in no way detract from this court’s obligation to assure 100 % enforcement of that law as it is. See Nelson v. Campbell, 286 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D.
Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.) (after discussing why it believed Eleventh Circuit law was incorrect, trial court still followed and applied that law), aff'd, Nelson v.
Campbell, 347 F.3d 910 (11th Cir. 2003), rev'd, Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004).

Rather, like all trial courts, this court must be guided by one overarching principle: the rule of law. Just as the Supreme Court gave to the courts in the trenches their marching orders in Heller and McDonald, it gave us our marching orders in Casey as well.

As the one Justice who signed onto both sets of marching orders has
stated: “The power of a court, the prestige of a court, the primacy of a court stand or fall by one measure and one measure alone: the respect accorded its judgments.”
Anthony M. Kennedy, Judicial Ethics and the Rule of Law,
40 St. Louis U. L.J. 1067 (1996). With this opinion today, this court, as it forges along as a soldier in the trenches carrying out orders from on high, puts its faith
in this statement and hopes that, in resolving the constitutional question before it, it has been faithful to the lofty command of the rule of law...

[Paladin]

4. Nice one, Judge. (nt)

[hvn_nbr_2]

5. I've been thinking the same thing for quite awhile.

To buy a gun, you should have to make a a 300-mile (each way) trip to the only open gun store in the state, then stay there for three days (or else make another trip), look at gory movies of gun violence, be told a pack of lies by doctors or gun salesmen as mandated by state legislature liars, have at least one orifice probed nonconsensually by a state legislator, and... and...

[SheilaT]

8. That would be perfect!

Let's start going for the legislation to do that.

[LuckyLib]

12. This exactly!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

18. ^^^

[Shrike47]

19. Yes, exactly.

[flygal]

20. Well put!

[hifiguy]

26. Brilliant!

[valerief]

49. BOOM! Love this! Great idea!!!! nt

[jmowreader]

51. The "orifice" thing wouldn't work

However, requiring someone to go through an extensive and intrusive psych evaluation, which the prospective gun buyer would have to pay for, every time he or she wanted to buy a gun would. Every time. Bought a revolver last month, and you're back for a shotgun? Sorry, you've got to go through the evaluation again. And if you fail the latest evaluation, you lose all your guns until you've proven you're sane again.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. Instead, we have this...

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12

[CTyankee]

63. hmm, I'm loving this...

[murielm99]

6. Great argument! n/t

[roguevalley]

7. oh god. I have a new argument.

[B Calm]

21. My thoughts too!

[Turbineguy]

10. Close gun stores?

I would be extremely careful about uttering such thoughts, for fear of getting shot. After all, aren't they considered places of worship?

[japple]

25. Hell they're not. I went to church yesterday at the First Baptist

Gun and Country Club.

[lastlib]

53. I have a church in my hometown that has an indoor firing range and....

...an archery target range. Srsly--it's part of their "mission outreach" to gun-humpers who use Sundays to hunt or whatever else gun-humpers do on Sundays. They hold their worship services on Thursday nights. I wonder if they know who Jesus would shoot?

[qwlauren35]

11. Lady...

you are on a roll today.

Championing women's causes in DU.

You are a breath of fresh air.

[KamaAina]

13. The hell of it is, I'm a male!

kama'aina = local person in Hawaiian (lit. "child of the land&quot , as opposed to malihini (visitor or foreigner).

My feminist mentor used to speak of "cranial testosterone poisoning". My case appears to be in remission. She also had a tongue-in-cheek proposal to exile all us guys to "Macho Island". After much begging and pleading, she permitted me to stay on as part of the macho Island embassy staff.

[qwlauren35]

15. WOW!

You're rare.

[KamaAina]

16. Unfortunately, yes. And I desperately need one of these.

The sad thing is, no female appreciates me enough to be with me.

[haikugal]

31. Oh.....

I hope that changes.....



Thank you for all you do for us!

[KamaAina]

34. How do you feel about Northern California?

The town of Ukiah, in Mendocino County just north of the Bay Area, has capitalized on the fact that its name is haiku spelled backwards by hosting a haiku festival!

[haikugal]

40. Awesome!!! I know just where that is, but I didn't know about this!

Thanks!

[KamaAina]

42. Here you go.

http://ukiahaiku.org/

Alas, San Jose is not exactly on the way up there.

[merrily]

39. Either you are not looking in the right places or you appear unavailable or you

are very selective. (See how I didn't say "too picky?&quot

When I was about 18, a wise woman told me that every woman who really wanted to be married was married. I didn't believe her then. I do now. The same is even more true of men. Look inward and you will see that you are not single because no woman wants to be with a great man like you. They do.

And remember: free advice is worth every penny you pay for it.

[KamaAina]

41. Must be the right places thing.

Also, my non-apparent disability may be offputting to potential partners, who may see me as aloof and uncommunicative.

[merrily]

43. That would be the "appear unavailable" thing and the right places thing.

I bet someone could give you tips about how to deal with that issue so it is less of a barrier. If you want it to be less of a barrier. However, I honestly did not mean to make you feel as though you had to post something persona

[niyad]

44. will have to see what we can do to remedy that!

[merrily]

35. All great men today are great feminists.

Nothing hellish about it.

[KamaAina]

36. You mean both of us, right?

[merrily]

38. I know lots of great men. You do, too.

[Major Nikon]

17. Not a bad idea really

If I can't buy a bottle of booze after a certain hour or on Sunday, why should I be able to buy a gun?

States should restrict gun stores that don't offer safety courses, trigger locks, etc. Gun store employees should be trained and certified on relevant gun laws so that they don't sell guns to people who shouldn't have them. Gun stores should be restricted from areas near schools, playgrounds, or other areas where children congregate in case of accidental discharge. Before anyone is allowed to buy a gun, they should be required to listen to alternatives to owning a gun like better locks on doors and windows, security systems, dogs, neighborhood watch, leaving access to the home locked at all times, adequate lighting, etc.

[Dont call me Shirley]

22. Seems a large chunk of anti-women's freedom to choose folks are gun-lovers too.

[meow2u3]

23. Don't give your fellow DUers any ideas

This just might work, especially in sapphire blue states like California or Vermont.

[SunSeeker]

24. K & R

[passiveporcupine]

27. That's gotta hurt!

[drm604]

28. If you want a gun

you have to be lectured on the danger of guns, watch gruesome videos of gun victims, and be subjected to intrusive psychological exams and brain scans, maybe with a colonoscopy thrown in for good measure.

And the seller has to tell you lies about guns causing cancer.

[Iris]

77. ^this^ for the win!

[merrily]

29. Brilliant. Another great find by KamaAina, too.

[KamaAina]

30. All credit to my 448 Facebook friends

I serve merely as an aggregator.

[merrily]

32. You make the selection as to what to post here, no?

[KamaAina]

33. Yup. I say "Aha! Grist for the DU mill."

[merrily]

37. Well, then, you make great choices.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Actually, I made it first-over a year ago: "A judge in Alabama gets it about abortion and guns"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172150747

Glad to see others following my lead...

[Eleanors38]

68. Discussed at length (and favorably) by pro-2A folks months ago.nt

[niyad]

45. works for me.

[libodem]

46. Best reasoning evah!

[d_legendary1]

47. Umm... (Playing Devil's Advocate)

What happens when a gun nut says that abortions are not written (literal sense) into the constitution, unlike guns?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

50. Doesn't matter IMHO

SCOTUS found the right to choose an abortion in the Constitution even if not explicitly there. It's just as valid.

[pipoman]

54. One is an opinion the other is specifically enumerated

Not that I think Roe will or should be overturned any time soon, it is far more likely than a constitutional amendment eliminating the 2nd amendment....it is a pretty easily defeated point..

[brett_jv]

67. It's not 'easily defeated' imho ... the INDIVIDUAL right was established by Heller in like 2005 ...

Taking the 2nd as applying to 'individuals' rather than 'members of the state militia' is most definitely the result of a Supreme Court DECISION, one that was contested and interpreted DIFFERENTLY ... for about 200 years, prior to Heller ...

[pipoman]

74. Yeah, and the collective (militia) idea was always indefensible

SCOTUS avoided it until they had to rule. There is no other interpretation of the English language, the founders writings, nor the meaning of the text. The collective idea isn't supported by any writings..

No, the second means exactly what it says....and that is what the decisions restate...

[awoke_in_2003]

75. Specifically enumerated

for well-regulated militias. A bunch of red neck gun humpers aren't a well-regulated militia.

[pipoman]

79. Never has been and never will be....time to move on from this fiction...

...embrace the democratic principal of liberalism...

[NBachers]

55. Ask them why they choose to ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.

[CTyankee]

64. Oh, they have their way to 'splain that for ya...

just go to the gungeon, unless you have trashed it entirely the way I have (along with most of their supporters when I encounter them). After a while their arguments, repeated endlessly, get to be too tedious so one by one they go on my full ignore list. DU is a happier place...and more interesting...

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. Because the Supremes have held that it isn't applicable

[A Simple Game]

48. Little by little you can see that the pushback is gaining traction with more and more

willing to speak out.

A funny thing and I don't know why I did it but after reading this thread I slowly scrolled back to the top while watching the left-hand side and it's funny, I never saw a big H, odd.

[Liberal_in_LA]

52. great

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. Can't you picture the steam coming out of their ears?

[Kablooie]

58. Problem is you'd get shot.

Close gun stores and get shot.
Open abortion clinic, get shot.

When your opposition is willing to kill you for disagreeing, arguments, no matter how justified and logical, aren't much of a defense.

[Betty Karlson]

59. Clever: right to life takes on a whole new meaning.

It now includes the right to post-natal life. Is this judge taking cues from Roberts, and using right-wing talking points (Scalia's opinions) to support moderate positions?

I'm liking this new direction that court opinions are taking!

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Those that think this can be used against guns haven't read the decision

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/alabortion08042014.pdf

V. CONCLUSION
The constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court are often viewed as more, or less, important in our minds based on our subjective beliefs, which may be the
result of religion, personal philosophy, traditions, or experiences. This is simply an aspect of human nature, but it is an aspect this court must resist.

In deciding this case, the court was struck by a parallel in some respects between the right of women to decide to terminate a pregnancy and the right of the
individual to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, in her home for the purposes of self-defense. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
(incorporating this right in the liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment due-process clause); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008) (first recognizing this right as protected by the Second Amendment).

At its core, each protected right is held by the individual: the right to decide to have an
abortion and the right to have and use firearms for self-defense. However, neither right can be fully exercised without the assistance of someone else. The right to abortion cannot be exercised without a medical professional, and the right to keep and bear arms means
little if there is no one from whom to acquire the handgun or ammunition.

In the context of both rights, the Supreme Court recognizes that some regulation of the
protected activity is appropriate, but that other regulation may tread too heavily on the right. Compare Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 (“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”) with Casey, 505 U.S. at 876 (“Not all burdens on the right to
decide whether to terminate a pregnancy will be undue.”).

Finally, as to each right, there are many who believe, as a matter of law, that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in articulating the right was incorrect and who also
believe, as a matter of strong moral or ethical convictions, that the activity deserves no constitutional protection.

With this parallelism in mind, the court poses the hypothetical that suppose, for the public weal, the federal or state government were to implement a new restriction on who may sell firearms and ammunition and on the procedure they must employ in selling such goods
and that, further, only two vendors in the State of Alabama were capable of complying with the restriction: one in Huntsville and one in Tuscaloosa. The defenders
of this law would be called upon to do a heck of a lot of explaining--and rightly so in the face of an effect so severe.

Similarly, in this case, so long as the Supreme Court continues to recognize a constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any regulation that would, in effect, restrict the exercise of that right to only Huntsville and Tuscaloosa should be subject to the
same skepticism. See Strange, --- F. Supp. 2d at ----, 2014 WL 1320158 at *13 (“the more severe an obstacle a regulation creates, the more robust the government’s
justification must be”).

This court, as a trial court, should not be in the business of picking and choosing which Supreme Court-recognized right to enforce or in deciding whether
to enforce a right strongly or only somewhat, based on this court’s independent assessment of the legal or moral wisdom behind the acknowledgment of that right. While
this trial court may have the license, if not the obligation, to contribute its proverbial “two cents” to the discussion of whether the law ought to be different,
that voicing should in no way detract from this court’s obligation to assure 100 % enforcement of that law as it is. See Nelson v. Campbell, 286 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D.
Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.) (after discussing why it believed Eleventh Circuit law was incorrect, trial court still followed and applied that law), aff'd, Nelson v.
Campbell, 347 F.3d 910 (11th Cir. 2003), rev'd, Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004).

Rather, like all trial courts, this court must be guided by one overarching principle: the rule of law. Just as the Supreme Court gave to the courts in the trenches their marching orders in Heller and McDonald, it gave us our marching orders in Casey as well.

As the one Justice who signed onto both sets of marching orders has
stated: “The power of a court, the prestige of a court, the primacy of a court stand or fall by one measure and one measure alone: the respect accorded its judgments.”
Anthony M. Kennedy, Judicial Ethics and the Rule of Law,
40 St. Louis U. L.J. 1067 (1996). With this opinion today, this court, as it forges along as a soldier in the trenches carrying out orders from on high, puts its faith
in this statement and hopes that, in resolving the constitutional question before it, it has been faithful to the lofty command of the rule of law...

[NeoGreen]

65. I believe the idea is not to use this "meme" against the ownership of guns as much as it...

...is to use the meme against the restrictions to access.

IMHO.

[ProfessorGAC]

69. You're Missing The Point By A Light Year

Nobody here thinks this is about restricting guns. The article specifically mentions a thought experiment.

How did you miss that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. The point was, one set of restrictions is just as odious as another

[Enthusiast]

62. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[Initech]

66. I am loving this!

[colsohlibgal]

70. Tell It Judge

That made my day. I've never dated a gun nut and no matter what happens I never will.

They are little kids inside who never got over playing with toy guns as toddlers.

[Go Vols]

76. I have 35-45 guns

Got most of them as birthday and Xmas presents from about age 8.

Never a problem and they are tools,much like the 4 fire extinguishers I have.

Maybe city folks don't need guns.

[KamaAina]

78. You have ten times as many guns as fire extinguishers?

Are you ten times as likely to have a home invasion as a fire?!

[Go Vols]

80. You need different guns to hunt diff animals

and like I said,"most were gifts" that I shoot once a year, and clean.

My fire extinguishers however are multi-purpose and I think 4 is enough.

[Snobblevitch]

81. There are municipalities that have done to gun

retailers that have also happened to abortion clinics.