Jim Lucas & Guy Relford, vs Dan Forestal: Live discussion thread

[actaeon277]

So I'm almost ready to chuck Facebook cause of all the anti-gun stupidity, when I see this on one of Jim Lucas's discussions.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

 

[JAL]

So confused now. I just don't get what "get" means any more.

John

 

[jamil]

I finally got a chance to listen to this. OMG. WTF?!

I'm not a lawyer either. To me, "get" = "acquire".

This line best sums up the entire back and forth:

"I feel like I'm playing chess with a pigeon."

As for the discussion of "acquire", "get", and "well, I'm a firefighter not a lawyer"....

I'm sure the comment was meant to appeal to the blue collar worker of the state.
I'm a blue collar worker.
When I hire a plumber, I expect a guy to know his tools and how to use them. And know the rules/laws the apply.
When I hire an electrican, I expect a guy to know his tools and how to use them. And know the rules/laws the apply.
And here's the thing....
When I hire a politican, I expect a guy to know his tools and how to use them. And know the rules/laws the apply.
So... if you're trying to decide LAW, you should probably NOT be arguing that "get" and "acquire" are different, especially WHEN THEY'RE NOT!

 

[chipbennett]

Close . . . Pinner v Indiana
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091701RR.pdf

I thought it would be brought up as it's related to CC and some of the pundits at the time stated it would create a de facto version of CC if cops couldn't demand you produce one if they suspect you're carrying. I've got my own concerns regarding CC as it potentially complicates national reciprocity if not in legislation, but in practice. The cost of a lifetime LTCH should be revisited but it's a revenue stream so driving it down is a Sysiphean Task pushing in the opposite direction.

25% into the broadcast (sans commercials).
Dan Forestal's new organization: BLM = Blog Lexical Matter
Flash mob demonstrations and protests pending.

John

Indiana's existing carry license is retained under Lucas's constitutional carry legislation, explicitly for the purpose of maintaining reciprocity.

 

[chipbennett]

So, Forestal's argument, which he could never cogently articulate, is that by "get," he means to include both the transfer/acquiring of a handgun, and also the possession/carrying of a firearm. Now, that's a dumb argument on its face, but unfortunately, Guy and Jim let him drag the discussion into the utterly irrelevant silliness of debating the definition of "get" vs "acquire."

What I would have liked to have seen would have been for either one of them to state the above, cut through Forestal's bovine excrement, and move the discussion on. Something like, "I'm not going to debate the difference in definition between 'get' and 'acquire'. What you're telling me is that you intended to include both the acquiring of a handgun AND the carrying of a handgun in your use of the term 'get'. If you will concede that constitutional carry will have no impact on existing background check requirements for the acquiring/transfer of a handgun, then we can discuss the possession and carrying of a handgun."

Of course, based on his performance, Forestal still would have refused to answer.

Basically, Forestal's argument is that, with constitutional carry, prohibited persons will no longer be compelled to apply for an LTCH after unlawfully acquiring a handgun. Poor Dan, bless his heart, apparently bases this argument on the specious premise that, currently, prohibited persons ARE compelled to apply for an LTCH after unlawfully acquiring a handgun. For someone who allegedly spends so much time "on the streets", Dan sure is ignorant of the current behavior of criminals (i.e. prohibited persons).

When faced with an explicit, simple, yes-no question, Forestal completely avoided and refused to answer that question, and then changed the subject. First, Guy should have harped more on making Dan answer the question (if only to show Dan even more for the illogic of his position). But even in allowing Dan to change the subject (to the matter of police no longer being able to use the LTCH to "check" people for their lawful status as proper persons), due to time constraints, Guy could only mention Pinner in passing. Worse, he let Dan steer the discussion into a "my street cred is bigger than your street cred" pissing match, and I no-context discussion of LTCH application denials.

In the end, the show made Dan sound like a fool, and exposed his anti-constitutional carry arguments for the nonsense that they are.

 

[jamil]

One thing Dan did, by filibustering so much time squabbling about non-issues ("get" vs "acquire"), there really wasn't enough time left to more thoroughly address the issues he raised about the concerns raised by the police.

Basically the argument Dan made is that we need firearm carry licensing so that police will have something to arrest bad people for when they can't think of any other reason to arrest him. I'd loved for Guy and Lucas to have had the time to kick Dan's ass on that little bit of nonsense.

I think that argument falls on too solid ground among the Fudds, but is actually very troubling. So during a stop, they think the guy they've stopped is a bad guy. But he has a handgun on him, and they can't think of anything else to arrest him for, to get him "off the streets", so they like having the handgun license because it at least gives them something to arrest him for. This is not the purpose of laws.

Guy did address this a little in talking about a database of prohibited persons. I think that's a workable solution so long as there's a due process to getting into the database and a due process way of getting out of it. But I'd liked him to talk about the absurdity of needing an otherwise unnecessary law to stay on the books so they have a reason to arrest people.

 

[dung]

so basically, I should skip the rest of this episode since I already listened to the first ten minutes?

 

[jamil]

so basically, I should skip the rest of this episode since I already listened to the first ten minutes?

Well. No. You can skip the "get" vs "acquire" debate, which lasts maybe 20 minutes or so. After that there are a number of good points made, especially Lucas's explanation of how the license requirement is essentially making law abiding citizens prove they're law abiding. I mean. I don' think that argument will go anywhere with anti-gun zealots. Their eyes probably gloss over and roll from their heads. But I think Lucus makes a fair point. It shouldn't be up to the law abiding people to prove their worthiness to carry a firearm. Because of technology and the nature of the issue--it's clearly defined what a non-proper person is, it seems better have some way to identify them.

 

[Hawkeye]

Is Forestal going to offer "testimony" at the Summer Study Hearing this month?

 

[Hawkeye]

so basically, I should skip the rest of this episode since I already listened to the first ten minutes?

If you want to listen to the Forestal "discussion", Guy basically dropped a 45 minute segment on his iTunes podcast this afternoon.

 

[jamil]

If you want to listen to the Forestal "discussion", Guy basically dropped a 45 minute segment on his iTunes podcast this afternoon.

Is this a new/continued discussion? Or is it just an excerpt from the show Saturday?

 

[Hawkeye]

Is this a new/continued discussion? Or is it just an excerpt from the show Saturday?

Its the Forestal discussion excerpted from the rest of his show. I think it was about 60-70% of the show.

 

[SwikLS]

finally got around to listening to the discussion/debate or whatever and after the first 10 minutes of listening to the ridiculousness of arguing over the words get and acquire I just turned it off.

 

[actaeon277]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...ile.php?id=100000158672409&ref=content_filter

Come on join the argument

 

[SteveM4A1]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...ile.php?id=100000158672409&ref=content_filter

Come on join the argument

Personally, I love what he is doing.