5-year-old accidentally shot

[CO Liberal]

5-year-old accidentally shot

The Associated Press
8/20/03 2:08 PM


ALEXANDRIA, La. (AP) -- A 5-year-old girl was wounded in what was believed to be an accidental shooting Wednesday in rural Rapides Parish, authorities said.

The girl was taken to Christus St. Francis Cabrini hospital, where she was in surgery, Sheriff's Sgt. Brian Frost said.

The bullet, fired from a handgun, went through the girl's buttocks and into her lower abdomen, Frost said.

It was unclear who had the gun when it went off. The parents were on the scene at the time of the shooting, Frost said, but no names were being released at this point in the investigation.

<more>

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?n1191_BC_LA--ChildShot&&news&newsflash-louisiana

[patdem]

1. Guns don't injure babies...babies injure babies...get over it!

A four year old with a gun injures a five year old...and it is NOT the gun's fault? NOW I need a break!

[MrBenchley]

5. This is disgraceful...

"The victim was at least the third child shot in three days in Louisiana. Early Monday, a 13-year-old girl was killed in a drive by shooting in New Orleans. On Tuesday, a 2-year-old boy in Meraux was seriously wounded when an attacker shot the child's father to death. "

Yeah, guns sure make people safer, don't they?

[Wcross]

16. Bad Parents

I don't think it is really a gun issue. These people aren't fit to be parents, and obviously shouldn't have a gun in the home. It would be just as safe to leave perscription drugs in a candy dish as it is to leave a loaded firearm out.

[iverglas]

17. well duh

"These people aren't fit to be parents, and
obviously shouldn't have a gun in the home."

And if they were "unfit" to do anything that affected no one but themselves, well then, nobody might care, right?

I keep trying to figure this out. How is this platitude a response to the problem of DEAD CHILDREN?

If you think that DEAD CHILDREN is a problem that deserves a solution, what EFFECTIVE solution might you propose?

If you are not proposing an EFFECTIVE solution, why would anyone think that you consider DEAD CHILDREN to be a problem that deserves a solution?

.

[Wcross]

18. Simple

License parents.

[sujan]

2. ouch

[jody]

3. CO, what new law would have prevented this incident? eom

[MrBenchley]

4. Gee, jody

why is it that only gun laws are supposed to PREVENT crime? Nobody ever says "Well, there was a bank robbery....guess those bank robbery laws don't work" for excellent reasons.

Tell you what...throw some of these asswipes who leave guns where four year olds can get them in jail for a good long time...and see if THAT doesn't prevent a few of these stories.

[Spoonman]

6. Those laws exist

http://www.cpswatch.com/news/article.asp?Index=1353

[MrBenchley]

7. Wow....

"If convicted, they each face up to two years in a state jail facility and a $10,000 fine."

Want to tell us if they were convicted?

[Spoonman]

8. He's been terminated

but I don't know if it's gone to court yet.

[demsrule4life]

9. Accidents happen all the

time and these kind of accidents kill about 15000 more a year then gun accidents do.
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/fata08212003.htm

[CO Liberal]

10. And Many Accidents Can Be Prevented

Of all types. And many gunaccidents can be prevented through more responsible storage and handling of firearms.

[jody]

11. CO, I agree about preventing accidents. I assume the death of anyone by

accident has the same value to society regardless of the way the person died.

If that assumption is correct, shouldn't a "fair minded person" attack the causal agents in terms of contribution to the overall accidential deat rate?

If that is somewhat correct, wouldn't that cause a "fair minded person" to spend 54 times more effort on reducing "motor vehicle accidential deaths" than on reducing "firearm related accidential deaths"?

If a person spends several times more effort on reducing "firearm related accidential deaths", than on "motor vehicle accidential deaths", then what adjectives should be used to classify such a person? Clearly "fair minded" is inappropriate.

[acerbic]

12. I fully support policies that would reduce car accidents:

mostly making public transport a better alternative to driving. It would reduce traffic congestion, stress when driving, road rage, "need" to drive drunk etc. It just so happens that the same "rugged individualists" who worship guns usually oppose public transport too.

[MrBenchley]

14. You will also notice

Cars that are unsafe are recalled. Cars are registered. Drivers are licensed. Cars are sold only to licensed drivers. Cars are subject to federally mandated safety standards.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

19. Erm, a couple of false facts here

Cars that are unsafe are recalled.

Yeah, so are firearms.

Cars are registered.

Depending on the location you dont have to ever register your car if it never travels on a public road.

Drivers are licensed.

Only for public roads, dont have to have license to drive otherplaces.

Cars are sold only to licensed drivers.

Nope, anyone can buy a car, a license is not required for purchase

Cars are subject to federally mandated safety standards.

only those that drive on public roads, if you want to buy a car that does not meet standards you can, you just can never take it on the street, unless of course it is on a trailor or something similiar.

[MrBenchley]

20. What a pantload

Yeah, there are LOTS of drivers not on public roads driven by unlicensed drivers in right wing nutland.

Here on earth, last time we went to a car dealership, we were asked for a our drivers' license and the dealer photostatted it before we took a test drive.

[Tinfoil]

95. I used to drive

my grandfather's truck on his farm when I was 12 years old. I don't recall having a license, nor needing one.

[MrBenchley]

96. And how many cars did you buy at age 12?

[FireHeart]

21. You know...

In most states, (if not all) car insurance is required by law. Let's leave out the loopholes such as "public use", etc

Why not require gun purchasers to also provide insurance at a comparable rate to car insurance? It *might* make the owner a bit more concious of gun safety, since the money is going to come out of his/her pocket regularly.

Just a thought. :)

Edited for error.

[Superfly]

22. Here's another thought

let's make US citizens PAY for the right to keep and bear arms in the form of licensing fees, firearm purchase fees (outside the cost of the gun), and insurance.

What'll make a gun owner more concious of gun safety is the possibility of severe punitive consequences in the event of misusing a firearm.

Brian

[iverglas]

25. then how come

"What'll make a gun owner more concious of gun safety
is the possibility of severe punitive consequences
in the event of misusing a firearm."

... we don't just let anybody who wants to drive a car, drive a car -- and impose "severe punitive consequences" for doing it badly or wrongfully?

Could it be ... because somebody once had the strange notion that the VICTIMS of the bad/wrongful use of the thing might be deserving of some consideration and compensation?? That THIS -- the harm/damage caused, not just the bad/wrongful use of the thing -- was an actual PROBLEM to which a SOLUTION was required?

Unlike the victims of the bad/wrongful use of firearms, and the problem of people being harmed by it ...

.

[iverglas]

23. good idea!

People who use cars pay insurance to cover the cost of any damage/harm caused during the use of the car -- no matter who is driving it (unless it is reported stolen, I suppose?), and no matter whether it is being used in a "law-abiding" way or not.

Householder's insurance doesn't cover damage caused by cars. Only those who own cars contribute to the pool for that purpose, which is established so that other forms of insurance or public programs, or victims, don't bear the cost of harm/damage caused by cars.

I like it. Of course ... it does require registration in order to be operable.

;)

[Superfly]

24. Maybe that'll work in Canada

but in the US, we don't pay to exercise our rights.

B

[iverglas]

26. damn, eh?

You mean ... given that you have that right to "liberty" and all ... you can just go to the movies for free?

I could go on ...

[iverglas]

27. uh ... not to mention ...

Nobody pays for those guns? I mean, ya got a RIGHT to have 'em, so how could you possibly have to pay for 'em?

Scratching my head so much I'm getting bald spots.

.

[Superfly]

28. Look at response 22

and stop scratching your head.

[iverglas]

29. nonsequituritis

I guess I'll just have to keep scratching my head ... unless you had something you wanted to say that addressed what I said.

[Superfly]

30. Alright

Point one: liberty and going to the movies for free, blah, blah, blah.

- I have absolutely no freaking idea what you are trying to say here. How does free exercise of rights equate to going to a movie for free?

Point two: Rights and paying for guns.

- I said "outside the price of the gun". We should not have to pay licensure fees, insurance fees, state fees, happy little elves fees, or any fees to exercise a right spelled out in the law. Doing so equates to "asking permission" to exercise that right.

But, you wouldn't understand, eh?

B

[DocSavage]

35. Rights for a Fee

I seem to remember somthing about a poll tax way back when. Found unconstitutional I do believe.

[CO Liberal]

36. The Poll Taxes Were Unconstitutional......

...because only blacks had to pay them. If the same fee is charged to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual preference, it might pass constitutional muster.

[DoNotRefill]

37. It's illegal to charge fees...

to exercise a right without waiving it for poor people. A prime example of this is fees relating to obtaining a marriage license.

[Terran]

38. Just curious

Can you cite the law you're referring to? Would that be a federal law? I've never heard of such a thing. There aren't too many laws in existence that make specific exceptions for "poor people", I'll wager.

Dirk

[MrBenchley]

39. In fact, there is no such law

And there is no individual right to own a gun, despite the NRA's voluminous lies.

[Spoonman]

40. Try again,

but first get some facts before stroking the keys.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual right to own guns, according to a federal appeals court in New Orleans. The court's opinion came in the case of Emerson v. United States, which has drawn intense national attention from supporters and opponents of gun control.

In the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, two judges of a three-judge panel wrote that "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights."
But the majority opinion added, "that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
The New Orleans court's ruling sets law for federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Courts in other circuits have said the amendment gives only a collective right, such as for state militia units. The U.S. Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in U.S. v. Miller (1939), which upheld the National Firearms Act's prohibition of interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns and of machine guns without government registration or stamped orders.

The Fifth Circuit Court said the Miller decision had been misinterpreted as endorsing the collective view of the right to bear arms, whereas it actually only excludes from Second Amendment protection firearms that have no military or defensive purpose.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the Fifth Circuit Court opinion would lay the groundwork for many other decisions that will analyze when gun control is permitted and when it is not.

Volokh said the ruling gave gun rights the first glimmer of protections like those granted in early free-speech cases to expression. "This is like what free speech rights were in 1930, when the Supreme Court first started to strike down speech restrictions," he said.

Source: William Glaberson, "Court Says Individuals Have a Right to Firearms," New York Times, October 17, 2001; Opinion, U.S. v. Emerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Docket No. 99-10331, October 16, 2001, revised October 18, 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/17/national/17GUNS.html

[MrBenchley]

41. Dream on....

And thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy?" When the fifth district court trumps the Supreme Court and Miller v US,m I'm sure we'll all know. In the meantime, the rest of us can see why the GOP wants to pack the courts with right wing whackjobs.

"Volokh said the ruling gave gun rights the first glimmer"
The FIRST glimmer? B-b-b-b-but haven't the RKBA crowd been claiming that the courts said that all along? Guess that's another RKBA lie.

Meanwhile, in the sane world: "Courts in other circuits have said the amendment gives only a collective right, such as for state militia units. The U.S. Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in U.S. v. Miller (1939)"

[Spoonman]

42. Keep dreaming

It's going to happen.
It will be decided by the "right wing" supreme court, that by the way were so right wing they overturned the sodomy law, that the second means individual rights.

It's very rare that they reverse a federal appeals court decision.

[MrBenchley]

43. Not unless this turns into a fascist country, spoon

"It's going to happen."
Gee, but the claim of the RKBA crowd is that it was that way all along....which we can ALL see now was just another pile of horseshit.

You have to wonder why the RKBA movement has to lie so often and so furiously. It's the same reason it relies on pseudoscientists and crooked judges.

[Spoonman]

44. Standard Reply

If you don't agree with me your
1. Crooked
2. Racist
3. Liars

Blah blah blah

Going to happen implies that our committment to the known meaning of the 2nd is going to be settled in our favor once and for all.

After that you can rant about how we should change the color of cranberries to purple, cause the red is causing seizures.

[MrBenchley]

45. Standard RKBA bullshit

"Going to happen implies that our committment to the known meaning of the 2nd is going to be settled in our favor once and for all."
And it also says outright that it isn't that way now......which is 180 degrees opposite what the RKBA crowd claims.

In other words, the Second Amendment posits a collective right....as every court but this one has upheld...and the RKBA crowd has lied their asses off about it.

Don't you wonder why that is?

[Spoonman]

46. Spin spin spin

you can cry all you want, yours is a loser cause.

[MrBenchley]

49. Yup, all you do is spin

Now go pout about it...

[Township75]

47. Collective Rights are NOT in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights contains individual rights.

[CO Liberal]

48. So Where Are the Indiividual Rights In The Tenth Amendment?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????????????

[MrBenchley]

51. They're collective, just like in the second

So why would the RKBA crowd need to lie about them? Possibly for the same reason they run when caught in this one.

[jody]

90. CO, I believe the Tenth Amendment speaks about powers, not rights.

U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers Annotations

[MrBenchley]

50. Sez you

Thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy."

[BullDozer]

53. Put up once and for all....

The U.S. Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in U.S. v. Miller (1939)

And yet you keep lying your ass off about US v Miller. You've been beaten about the head so many times with the truth on this very same subject that the only reasonable conclusion is that you are intentionally stating that which you know to be untrue which makes it a lie.

No where in US v Miller does it say that the Second Amendment only applies to a collective right.

It does most certainly say, since you are basing your entire argument on the word militia and you refuse to believe evidence that has already been shown to you numerous times that the militia is composed of the people.

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

While you chew on that you should also ponder:

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/bill_of_rights.html

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787

[MrBenchley]

57. Been there, done that

Now go peddle your NRA propaganda to someone dumb enough to believe it...

[BullDozer]

58. Still wrong B.

Now go peddle your NRA propaganda to someone dumb enough to believe it...

That's so damn weak especially since I showed nothing from the NRA, I only quoted the US v Miller decision and a government archives page.


Are you going to put your proof up? It should be easy for you since you claim to have "been there done that"

[MrBenchley]

59. You can peddle it as hard as you want

but it's still horseshit.

And as for my proof, all anyone has to do is go back up the thread.

[BullDozer]

89. None of the above

And as for my proof, all anyone has to do is go back up the thread.

Is that so? Why don't we take a look and see?

post #5- nope nothing there.
post #4- nope nothing there
post #7- nope nothing there
post#14-nope nothing there
post#20-nope nothing there

post#39-MrBenchley
Response to Reply #38
39. In fact, there is no such law
And there is no individual right to own a gun, despite the NRA's voluminous lies.

Post#41-
41. Dream on....

And thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy?" When the fifth district court trumps the Supreme Court and Miller v US,m I'm sure we'll all know. In the meantime, the rest of us can see why the GOP wants to pack the courts with right wing whackjobs.

"Volokh said the ruling gave gun rights the first glimmer"
The FIRST glimmer? B-b-b-b-but haven't the RKBA crowd been claiming that the courts said that all along? Guess that's another RKBA lie.

Meanwhile, in the sane world: "Courts in other circuits have said the amendment gives only a collective right, such as for state militia units. The U.S. Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in U.S. v. Miller (1939)"

Post#43-nope nothing there.
post#45-45. Standard RKBA bullshit


"Going to happen implies that our committment to the known meaning of the 2nd is going to be settled in our favor once and for all."
And it also says outright that it isn't that way now......which is 180 degrees opposite what the RKBA crowd claims.

In other words, the Second Amendment posits a collective right....as every court but this one has upheld...and the RKBA crowd has lied their asses off about it.

Don't you wonder why that is?
post#49--nope nothing there.

post#51
51. They're collective, just like in the second
So why would the RKBA crowd need to lie about them? Possibly for the same reason they run when caught in this one.

post#50--nope nothing there.
post#57--nope nothing there.

and finally post#59 where you claim that your proof is further up this thread.

Do you care to actually point to your proof (as if there actually is any!) because there sure as hell isn't any in this damn thread!

Face it, the antigun side lies their asses off about US v Miller and you haven't shown any proof to support your so called opinion

[MrBenchley]

92. Tough luck dozer...guess you missed #41

When the fifth district court trumps the Supreme Court and Miller v US,m I'm sure we'll all know. In the meantime, the rest of us can see why the GOP wants to pack the courts with right wing whackjobs.

"Volokh said the ruling gave gun rights the first glimmer"
The FIRST glimmer? B-b-b-b-but haven't the RKBA crowd been claiming that the courts said that all along? Guess that's another RKBA lie.

Meanwhile, in the sane world: "Courts in other circuits have said the amendment gives only a collective right, such as for state militia units. The U.S. Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in U.S. v. Miller (1939)"

Now go peddle your RKBA lies to someone dumb enough to believe them.

[BullDozer]

93. Nope I got it

No where in US v Miller does it say that the Second Amendment only applies to a collective right. Please show exactly where you think it does.

It does most certainly say, since you are basing your entire argument on the word militia and you refuse to believe evidence that has already been shown to you numerous times that the militia is composed of the people.

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

[MrBenchley]

94. Now go peddle your rubbish

to someone dumb enough to buy it.

[Tinfoil]

97. LOL!

And as for my proof, all anyone has to do is go back up the thread.

Is that so? Why don't we take a look and see?

post #5- nope nothing there.
post #4- nope nothing there
post #7- nope nothing there
post#14-nope nothing there
post#20-nope nothing there

post#39-MrBenchley
Response to Reply #38
39. In fact, there is no such law
And there is no individual right to own a gun, despite the NRA's voluminous lies.

Post#41-
41. Dream on....

And thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy?" When the fifth district court trumps the Supreme Court and Miller v US,m I'm sure we'll all know. In the meantime, the rest of us can see why the GOP wants to pack the courts with right wing whackjobs.

"Volokh said the ruling gave gun rights the first glimmer"
The FIRST glimmer? B-b-b-b-but haven't the RKBA crowd been claiming that the courts said that all along? Guess that's another RKBA lie.

Meanwhile, in the sane world: "Courts in other circuits have said the amendment gives only a collective right, such as for state militia units. The U.S. Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in U.S. v. Miller (1939)"

Post#43-nope nothing there.
post#45-45. Standard RKBA bullshit


"Going to happen implies that our committment to the known meaning of the 2nd is going to be settled in our favor once and for all."
And it also says outright that it isn't that way now......which is 180 degrees opposite what the RKBA crowd claims.

In other words, the Second Amendment posits a collective right....as every court but this one has upheld...and the RKBA crowd has lied their asses off about it.

Don't you wonder why that is?
post#49--nope nothing there.

post#51
51. They're collective, just like in the second
So why would the RKBA crowd need to lie about them? Possibly for the same reason they run when caught in this one.

post#50--nope nothing there.
post#57--nope nothing there.

and finally post#59 where you claim that your proof is further up this thread.

Do you care to actually point to your proof (as if there actually is any!) because there sure as hell isn't any in this damn thread!


Pretty funny!

[MrBenchley]

98. Actually it's pathetically sad

If it were not a collective right, there'd be no fuss at all about the right wing nuts in New Orleans (and note that they still ruled Emerson couldn't have his guns).

The plain fact: If what the NRA and the gun nuts said about the Second Amendment was true, every gun control law would be unconstitutional. In its entire history, the NRA has NEVER sued to overturn a single gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. That's never as in NO time, NO place, NO how.

They know the difference between the truth and what they spoon-feed their inbred, feeble-minded followers.

[BullDozer]

99. Get thee to a market

So you can try to sell that rancid fish of yours to some sucker.

You try to argue against individual right by arguing that absolute right isn't being asserted?

Get a F'in clue.


How hard can you spin?

[MrBenchley]

100. Go fume to someone dumb enough to buy it, dozer

You can peddle this revisionist crap till you're blue in the face, but it's still hooey.

[BullDozer]

101. I "speak" to those who are smart enough to read

I've laid out facts for them to read where as for you....


well flushing gives the same results to the sewer as your posts do here.

[iverglas]

52. did anybody consider noticing

(I haven't read all of that long row of ripostes yet)

... that the law that dirk was asking about, when he said this:

"Can you cite the law you're referring to? Would that be a federal law? I've never heard of such a thing. There aren't too many laws in existence that make specific exceptions for "poor people", I'll wager."

was THIS one:

"It's illegal to charge fees...
to exercise a right without waiving it for poor people. A prime example of this is fees relating to obtaining a marriage license."

???

I.e., the poster whom dirk was addressing appeared to be saying that there is some law (perhaps just an unwritten but rule that may be enforced against this "illegal" fee?) providing that marriage licence fees are waived for poor people because "it's illegal to charge fees to exercise a right without waiving it for poor people".

I'd love to see the law, or rule, or whatever, myself.

It's illegal to charge a fee to exercise the right to liberty ... so I won't be paying for movie tickets, as I have already mentioned and someone chose to feign shock and appallment at. But let's keep it public-sector: I won't be paying camping fees in any provincial park next summer.

It's illegal to charge a fee to exercise the right to life ... so I won't be paying for groceries, either. Well, let's say I won't be paying sales taxes on take-out hamburgers; all public-sector there.

Of course, I also have a right to hunt, fish, drive (including on public toll roads), cross public bridges, you name it -- all exercises of my right to liberty, if nothing else.

Funny how strictly some people like to interpret some of those constitutional rights thingies -- like, the right to life of people who are not presenting an immediate and unavoidable threat to someone else's life or limb, or hell, of people who can't afford groceries; fuck that one -- and yet how ... liberally (that's a term of art in statutory and constitutional interpretation, lest anyone think I've lost my mind) ... they want to interpret some others.

The right to own a gun, the exercise of that one has to be facilitated. The right to life, that one depends on whether you can pay.

Time to tighten up that border, sez I.

.

[DoNotRefill]

56. Sure.

Read Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971).

In Zablocki, a case involving a Wisconsin law prohibiting people who owed child support from marrying was struck down. Justice Marshall, writing for the majority, stated "the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that 'critical examination' of the State interests advanced required."

In Boddie, two indigent people were unable to afford the filing fee to get a divorce. Justice Harlan, writing for the majority, stated "that, given the basic position of the marriage relationship in this society's hierarchy of values and the concomitant state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving this relationship, due process (prohibits) a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay, access to it's courts to individuals who seek judicial dissolution of their marriages."

In short, if it involves a fundamental right, the government cannot deny exercise of that right due to inability to pay fees. This is the same logic used to strike down Virginia's $1.50 poll tax.

[Terran]

63. Ok, that does establish a legal principle

but that doesn't make it "illegal" to charge fees without waivers for "poor people". There are any number of ways such a common law precendent might affect a future national gun licensing scheme. But it's not accurate to say that even a Supreme Court decision makes something "illegal" when there are no existing laws to be invalidated by the decision. Lawmakers, either state or federal, would have to enact laws or regulations to make such a thing "illegal." Without such laws, someone who felt their rights were being violated in that manner would be forced to litigate the matter, as there is no statute (that I know of) protecting them, just case law.

Dirk

[DoNotRefill]

70. Sure it does.

If it's a fundamental right, people cannot be denied it because they cannot afford to pay it. It's just as illegal as "separate but equal" schools or any other form of segregation. Once the Supreme Court made the decision, the specific laws were overturned, and the rest of the laws became unenforceable.

There are thousands of laws which are still on the books, and theoretically still in force, that are unenforceable because of Supreme Court precedent. Localities that try to enforce them are quickly challenged, if not by the person in question, then by public interest law groups like the ACLU. As long as the law isn't enforced, people don't bother.

In other words, everybody involved knows that the law is no longer good, and it's only if somebody does something stupid that it's actually challenged and thrown out.

[iverglas]

69. whoa, somebody's doing a little "reading in"

What you had said:

"It's illegal to charge fees...
to exercise a right without waiving it for poor people.
A prime example of this is fees relating to obtaining
a marriage license."

What the court you cite said:

"the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that 'critical examination' of the State interests advanced required."

Now, those unfamiliar with things like the rules of constitutional scrutiny ... or the English language ... might ... guess ... that the two statements are equivalent.

The issue was "a Wisconsin law prohibiting people who owed child support from marrying".

Are "people who owed child support" the same set as "poor people"?

I don't think so. In fact, I know they aren't. The case you cite does NOT support the statement you made, not as far as I can tell. I suppose I should go find the case that you don't give a link for ...

The court referred to the rule of constitutional scrutiny requiring that the classification used by the state to effect a distinction among groups in their exercise of a right must, for starters, be relevant.

A quick and dirty summary (emphasis added):

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that
the challenged classification serves a compelling state
interest and that the classification is necessary to serve
that interest.):

...

B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights

1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

I gather that the court was recognizing the right to marriage as fundamental, and strict scrutiny was therefore what would apply. The state had used a classification -- people who owed/did not owe child support -- that did not serve a compelling state interest and was not necessary to serve that interest. (Perhaps it did serve a compelling state interest -- ensuring that parents support their children -- but the denial of equal protection was not necessary in order to serve that interest.)

Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "poor people", except that poor people might well benefit from the ruling. So might rich people.

.

Then we have the divorce case, in with you quote the court as saying

"that, given the basic position of the marriage relationship in this society's hierarchy of values and the concomitant state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving this relationship, due process (prohibits) a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay, access to it's courts to individuals who seek judicial dissolution of their marriages."

This seems to be applying the same test, and finding that "inability to pay" is an improper basisf or classification.

Let's keep in mind that the basis for such decisions is:

The Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall...deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Here my knowledge of foreign law grows a little thin, but I suspect that this court was referring to "sustantive due process", which is akin to the "equality under the law" (not just before the law) and "equal benefit of the law" (not just protection of the law) that Canada guarantees, and is really a form of equal-treatment right. I welcome any clarification of this.)

The divorce case is interesting, and frankly I think it might apply to marriage licence fees (while your first example seems irrelevant to the poverty point).

I'm not quite seeing a perfect parallel between getting married, or divorced (which is important partly because it is necessary in order to exercise that fundamental right to marry), and owning firearms.

One little difference might be that the state has no need to control -- interest in controlling -- who gets married. I mean, it has some interest, e.g. in ensuring that siblings and already-married people don't marry, but that's not the point of the licence fee, and that interest is perfectly well protected by legislating and by controlling how people get married, not how much it costs them.

(Siblings, and everyone else, need to provide birth certificates in order to marry; perhaps they would also be relieved of the cost of obtaining them. Already-married people are required to declare under oath that they are not already married, or provide divorce certificates; again, perhaps they would be relieved of that cost. If there were a sudden outbreak of thousands of siblings or already-married people attempting to marry, perhaps the court would find differently: that the state's imposition of a fee did serve the state's interest in question, and was necessary for that purpose.)

The state DOES have an interest in controlling who owns firearms. I am guessing that even you would agree to that: that convicted murderers or what have you should not be able to possess firearms. I am also guessing that a lot more people who shouldn't be permitted to own firearms might try to get firearms than people who shouldn't be permitted to marry would try to marry. And I can confidently state that the potential harm in the first case is far greater than the potential harm in the second case -- the state's interest is a little more compelling.

In protecting that interest, the state necessarily incurs costs. Costs that it doesn't incur in controlling who gets married to the minimal extent that it needs to do that.

Does the charging of a fee for a licence to possess firearms stand up to "strict scrutiny"? (Assuming that strict scrutiny, and not middle tier/substantially related scrutiny, or minimum/rational basis scrutiny apply, for the same of argument: your "best case" and my "worst case" scenario.)

Requiring a licence (and charging a fee for that licence) does serve a state interest that might indeed be characterized as "compelling". Is charging a licence fee "necessary" in order to serve that interest? A debatable question -- but one that has to be at least addressed.

You seem to have cited law without understanding what it is actually saying, unfortunately. The fact that one licence fee did not stand up to strict scrutiny simply does not mean that another licence fee would not stand up to strict scrutiny.

Has no one ever challenged licence fees for firearms possession under the 14th amendment??

.

[DoNotRefill]

72. Oh, man...I was ignoring you...

but since you've made a substantive point, I'll respond.

"I'm not quite seeing a perfect parallel between getting married, or divorced (which is important partly because it is necessary in order to exercise that fundamental right to marry), and owning firearms."

The parallel isn't perfect, because the Supreme Court has not ruled on if the Second Amendment is "fundamental to an order of structured liberty". Please note: This doesn't mean they have ruled that it is NOT, it means they haven't ruled either way.

"One little difference might be that the state has no need to control -- interest in controlling -- who gets married."

Sure they do. There's a long-standing tradition of governmental regulation of who may marry. Look at the miscegenation laws that have been overturned within the past 50 years, and the very current "gay marriage" issue that's still being knocked around.


"The state DOES have an interest in controlling who owns firearms."

The State has an interest in controlling EVERYTHING. Well, at least until the Courts tell them they can't. That's part of our system of government, the constant push and pull of different branches of government, and how equilibrium is maintained.

"You seem to have cited law without understanding what it is actually saying, unfortunately."

Damn, and we were doing so well. What's pathetic is that I think we're probably pretty close ideologically on most of this, in that we both think that the Government shouldn't be able to deny poor people their fundamental liberties just because they're poor and can't afford a $30 marriage license, or $60 to get divorced. The only real bone of contention between us is if firearms ownership is a fundamental liberty interest, and that's not really here nor there in this part of the thread. Just ONCE, I'd like to read you say "gee, that's an interesting point, I hadn't heard of such a thing, thanks for bringing that to my attention" instead of "you're stupid and wrong". Well, that's OK. I'll not hold my breath. ;-)

"The fact that one licence fee did not stand up to strict scrutiny simply does not mean that another licence fee would not stand up to strict scrutiny."

True. In order for it to stand up, it has to be a fundamental right. Non-fundamental rights have been held NOT to have the same protections, for instance, a poor person may NOT have bankruptcy filing fees waived, because the court said it's not a fundamental right. It all comes down to "Is it fundamental, or isn't it?" We can argue about it until we're blue in the face, and until the Supreme court rules on it, our arguments will fall on each other's deaf ears.

"Has no one ever challenged licence fees for firearms possession under the 14th amendment??"

Certainly not at the Supreme Court, at least as far as I've heard.

[iverglas]

78. I'm so smart

You're so unsuccessfully tricky. Bear with me, I have to dispose of the problems before getting to the pith and substance, since the problems still stand in the way.

You "quote" me (again, I use the word loosely) as saying:

"One little difference might be that the state has no need to control -- interest in controlling -- who gets married."

And then you say:

"Sure they do. There's a long-standing tradition of governmental regulation of who may marry. Look at the miscegenation laws that have been overturned within the past 50 years, and the very current 'gay marriage' issue that's still being knocked around."

And the damned amazing thing is that I had ALREADY SAID, in the sentences IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING the one you quoted:

I mean, it has some interest, e.g. in ensuring that siblings and already-married people don't marry, but that's not the point of the licence fee, and that interest is perfectly well protected by legislating and by controlling how people get married, not how much it costs them.

(I, of course, was referring to instances in which the state DOES "have an interest" in who gets married -- not to instances, such as the "miscegenation" one you cite, in which the state DOES NOT have such an interest.)

This tactic must work somewhere. Somewhere that there are really gullible people with really short attention spans. Can't we just give it up? All it does is interefere in the discourse, and irritate at least one of the participants.



On to the pith and substance. (That's a constitutional law term up here, used for determining whether legislation is properly under federal or provincial jurisdiction. Just for fun.)

.

me: "I'm not quite seeing a perfect parallel between getting married, or divorced (which is important partly because it is necessary in order to exercise that fundamental right to marry), and owning firearms."

you: "The parallel isn't perfect, because the Supreme Court has not ruled on if the Second Amendment is 'fundamental to an order of structured liberty'. Please note: This doesn't mean they have ruled that it is NOT, it means they haven't ruled either way."

No, that is not / would not be the REASON WHY ("because") the parallel is not / would not be perfect. There really can be perfect parallels in the universe without the US Supreme Court having ruled them to be.

Please note: I DID NOT SAY that the fact that the US Supreme Court has not ruled that they are perfect parallels means that it has ruled that they are not. I'd have to be an idiot to have said that. Whatever -- I didn't say it, or suggest it, or imply it, so your little note seems to have missed its mark.

I'm sure that the US Supreme Court has also not ruled that a square has four equal sides and four equal angles. (Well, relatively sure.) I also have no problem stating that a square does have four equal sides and four equal angles.

You see? -- and do please note, and if I may paraphrase you -- the fact that the US Supreme Court HAS NOT RULED that something IS a perfect parallel does not mean that it is not.

We're all free to have our own opinions about that (as we would of course be, even if the US Supreme Court had ruled). All *I* ask is that opinions offered up for me to read be accompanied by true facts and relatively sound, valid argument.

"The only real bone of contention between us is if firearms ownership is a fundamental liberty interest, and that's not really here nor there in this part of the thread."

But you see, that is NOT the only question, and so is likely not the only bone of contention.

It simply is NOT sufficient to determine that something is a "fundamental liberty interest". The other questions ALSO have to be asked and answered; to paraphrase:

- does the state have a compelling interest in the matter?
- is it necessary for the fundamental liberty interest to be interfered with in order to advance the state's interest?

That was *my* whole point.

me: "The fact that one licence fee did not stand up to strict scrutiny simply does not mean that another licence fee would not stand up to strict scrutiny."

you: "True. In order for it to stand up, it has to be a fundamental right."

But NO, you see? In order for it (the licence fee ... I think we're getting confused here) to stand up, IF it is a fee for the exercise of a fundamental right:

- the state must have a compelling interest in the matter;
- it must be necessary to charge the fee in order to advance its interest.

Strict scrutiny STARTS from the determination that there is a fundamental right in issue and that its exercise is being restricted, and THEN asks those questions and makes those determinations. It very definitely does not STOP with the determination that there is a fundamental right in issue and that its right is being restricted.

"It all comes down to 'Is it fundamental, or isn't it?'"

You see? It doesn't come down to that. It goes on well beyond that.

"We can argue about it until we're blue in the face, and until the Supreme court rules on it, our arguments will fall on each other's deaf ears."

That is simply not at all how I see it. I see such "arguments" as immensely fruitful. I regard them as the backbone of democracy, which is why I am so offended when I see deception and disingenuousness employed in place of good faith and respect. (That is a *general* statement not directly related to this specific discussion.) My ears are NOT deaf to argument. They are, however, deadened by ad personam, straw people, red herrings, misrepresentation ...

I am interested in argument not only because of the possibility of a resolution being reached, which there must always be considered to be or we may as well all jump off a cliff -- but also just to understand what the "other side" thinks ... which is actually essential to reaching a resolution, of course, but is also just interesting in itself. The ad personam, straw people, red herrings and misrepresentation do not assist me in gaining that understanding. What they do tend to do is persuade me that the other side is no more interested in thinking than in reaching a resolution.

This here might be one "argument" that actually could go somewhere, on a point that is not only relevant in itself, but illustrative of what needs to be considered on various other points -- since, as you say, we at least seem to have some really basic common ground: at least a rudimentary knowledge of what the applicable rules of constitutionality are. I must say I've yet to get even that far, very often.

"Just ONCE, I'd like to read you say 'gee, that's an interesting point, I hadn't heard of such a thing, thanks for bringing that to my attention' ...

I can oblige you partway. It is an interesting point. (The fact that I rambled on about it is generally evidence that I find it interesting, for future reference.) And the specifics that you brought up: indeed I probably hadn't heard of such a thing (i.e. marriage licence/divorce application fees). And it is absolutely relevant to issues in issue here. The "point" is a potential winner, in the "win-win" sense that everyone benefits when relevant matters are discussed from an informed and good faith position.

But I really have "heard of such a thing": I am very, very familiar with constitutional scrutiny. The rules in Canada vary in detail and emphasis, but the thrust is very much the same as in the US -- the whole fundamental rights, compelling state interest, rational/necessary connection between infringement and advancement of interest, thing -- and I have familiarized myself to a decent degree with the differences in the US approach.

me: "Has no one ever challenged licence fees for firearms possession under the 14th amendment??"

you: "Certainly not at the Supreme Court, at least as far as I've heard."

So perhaps we could set up a kangaroo moot court for the purpose. Proper rules to be followed: no ad personam, no red herrings, no straw people, no misrepresentation. In a novel twist, I'll volunteer to represent the fee-imposing state. (I made my first career out of opposing the state on behalf of individuals, you see. Of course, I might actually have to do some work on the present one before delving into such an endeavour.)

.

[DoNotRefill]

84. And therein lies the problem.

"I'm so smart. You're so unsuccessfully tricky." AND "The ad personam, straw people, red herrings and misrepresentation do not assist me in gaining that understanding."

My intent has NOT been to attempt any kind of trickery. You ASSUME it is. Does that mean your comments fall under the category of your second quote? It sure looks that way from here.

From my perspective, the marriage license/divorce fees issue is quite compatible with the gun fee issue. To me, it's a question of the State's ability to interfere with the exercise of a right for pecuniary gain. The right of the State to collect fees isn't really debatable to me, they have a right to do so, PROVIDED that it's done for the purpose of raising revenue/offsetting costs (not one of prohibition) and is done in such a way as to not "price people out of the market" for the exercise of their rights. The MAIN difference between the marriage/gun issue is one of fundamentalism, again, from my perspective. It's settled that marriage is a fundamental right, and that people can't be denied access to the courts for this purpose based upon some kind of fee structure simply because they're unable to pay. That hasn't been addressed by the Supreme Court regarding the RKBA. Without addressing the issue of "is it a fundamental right", you can't GET to the State's interests.

Frankly, I have no real interest in discussing this (or any other issue) with you. I don't mean the following as a personal attack, I'm merely stating my reasons for not wishing to have further discourse with you. I hope you don't take this as an insult, it's not meant that way. I find your posts to generally be long-winded, rude, condescending, obfuscatory, and uneducated within a framework of "I know so much!!!". I've got better ways to spend my time than conversing with you. I really do wish you'd put me on ignore, and I'd do the same for you. My post quoting the caselaw was directed towards Dirk. I'd ask you, one human being to another, simply to stop responding to my posts. I'll stop responding to yours (this time I'm actually setting the ignore thing up). Thanks!!! :)

[iverglas]

88. nyah nyah

What is it, national stand up for our way of life day in the USofA?

Y'all go back to your name-calling and blaming and finger-pointing and revelling in uninformed opinions and assorted other diversionary grooming now. Far be it from me to interfere in anybody's national pastimes. Some nationalities play soccer, others sit in darkened living rooms with their fingers on their triggers just waiting for somebody to happen by who needs to be reminded of how unimportant they are ... by somebody with a hugely inflated sense of his/her own importance ...

.

[Spoonman]

32. I've got a great idea

for a business.

Let's create a product that hundreds of millions of people need, then get our government to pass a law that requires them to have it.

Let's also make sure that if you have to take out a loan on a house or almost anything else, you have to have it, or be denied the loan.

Now once we have created this "mandatory" market place for our product, let's charge everyone enough money to make a huge profit.

In order to justify this profit to anyone who bitches, let's set up parent companies to charge ourselves management fees in excess of what we're charging our customers. This way we can claim to be losing money and we can justify price increases constantly.


Let's see, what product can we come up with?

INSURANCE!!!

I for one would refuse to ever allow the insurance companies of this country any more power than they already have.

[LibLabUK]

64. Hmmm

Do you disagree with the concept of insurance, or that it is mandatory?

Do you not think that by making insurance mandatory protects the people who need to make claims against that insurance?

If insurance weren't compulsory...

What would happen if, for instance, I get run down by a car on a crossing. The driver of the car has no insurance. I can no longer earn my living as an olympic tightrope walker, so I sue the driver. I win my case and am awarded £1,000,000 to cover medical, living and other costs for the rest of my life. However, the driver declares bankruptcy and I get a mere fraction of the settlement... leaving me struggling to support 12 children and my 3-a-week Faberge egg habit.

Presumably at some point in the recent past, my story wasn't unsual... in fact it was so not unusual that laws were passed to make insurance for cars mandatory (at least in the UK, I'm not sure about over there).

[Spoonman]

67. Hmmm

"to cover medical"

Medical costs are covered by the government.
The insurance requirements and system are totally different.

Just to dispel suspicions, why don't you explain to us how insurance policies work in the UK.

Having spent several years dealing with my Aberdeen office accidents I have a pretty good idea how it works, plus my boss in the office next to me, was born and raised in the UK.

I had him read your post, and we could be wrong, but it appears you either intentionally left out a critical piece of info applicable to your "hypothetical" scenario, or you are not what you are claiming to be.

[LibLabUK]

73. Hmmm

You completed avoided the question, and focused on an irrelevant detail.

Yes I did make an error.. in the UK my medical bills would be covered by my national insurance contributions, and I would recieve a small disability allowance to cover living costs. However, this would not cover the entire loss of earnings caused by not being able to work any longer.

Modifications to my house, vehicles etc would not be fully compensated for either.

So the uninsured driver has indeed left me severely out of pocket, my olympic tightrope walking career is very lucrative :)

Are you going to deal with the actual issue or are you going to continue to question my nationality? I'm at a loss to see what benefit there would be in pretending to be British... well I spose there's the accent. :)

Just so as you know, NHS care isn't free... I pay ~£80 (~$132) per month for my medical coverage in direct NI contributions.

In addition, do you think it fair that the taxpayer is burdoned with paying for my continued care?

Shouldn't the persons responsible for my condition foot the cost?

[Spoonman]

75. Sorry,

I have not avoided the question.

Your system of insurance is totally different.

The system here is unregulated, and we are left to the mercy of the policy writer.

I do believe insurance should be required for vehicles, with a lot more controls in place for those who violate the law.
SEVER punishment, such as selling the vehicle of the violator at public auction to generate $ for victims of accidents such as the one you presented.

I pay over $2200 annually for my insurance, with every discount available, and a perfect driving record. Hell, I'm a defensive driving instructor.

To me this is outrageous, because the same coverage was $1300 two years ago.

Gun insurance, hell no, the only people that would benefit from it would be the insurance companies and lawyers.

[LibLabUK]

77. Hmm

"Gun insurance, hell no, the only people that would benefit from it would be the insurance companies and lawyers."

Why?

Why wouldn't it operate in a similar fashion to car insurance, i.e. benifitting the person who has a claim?

What happens at present if you accidentally injure someone with a gun?

[Spoonman]

81. Hmmmm

"What happens at present if you accidentally injure someone with a gun?"

Seeing as my guns remained locked in a theft and fire proof safe, or they are on my person, it's going to be pretty hard for them to jump up and hurt somebody on their own, as many would have you believe. I do not see how that opportunity would ever arise given the manner in which my firearms are used.

Mandatory insurance would cost me money, thus putting the money in the pockets of the insurance company, while my "need" for insurance is unjustified. The lawsuits would soon start after mandatory insurance, because we all know lawyers are nothing more than bottom dwellers that live off the misery of others and are about trustworthy as a sack of shit, which by the way also has more morals and integrity too, they would want "damages" for pain and suffering not covered on the claim, thus driving the price of the policies even higher.

All this when I have never even come close to exposing anyone to the "hazards" of my guns. In other words why should I have to pay for the stupidity and the lack of responsable behavior of others?

I do drive on public roads, and do have the potential to expose or create a hazard or injury to others, thus I see the need for vehicle insurance

[iverglas]

87. ah yes

"SEVER<E> punishment, such as selling the vehicle of the violator at public auction to generate $ for victims of accidents such as the one you presented."

We have someone to blame and punish, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE PROBLEM THAT REMAINS UNSOLVED.

The typical answer from all too many USAmericans about just about any problem one could name.

Sell the car of an uninsured driver ... that oughta pay for this month's rent and groceries.

Yup, that sure does solve the problem of what the quadriplegic driver and his/her family are going to eat, wear, sleep under, read ... for the rest of their lives.

But yes, you have agreed that car insurance should be mandatory, despite how it enriches those insurance companies; so my point is apparently moot.

Of course, my real point is that you still haven't demonstrated how the NO INSURANCE solution is appropriate for firearms owners, when it isn't appropriate for car owners. I thought that was the question.

Presumably blaming and punishing somebody (as if that seemed ever to happen anyway) is good enough when it comes to the problems of people killed and injured by firearms owners or people who are given access to their firearms, although not when it comes to people killed and injured by car owners or people who are given access to their cars ...

.

[iverglas]

74. what the???

You "quoted" this (I say "quoted" in question marks because I am using the word so loosely):

"to cover medical"

and then you said this:

Medical costs are covered by the government.
The insurance requirements and system are totally different.

Brilliant riposte to what you "quoted" (and so what if they're "covered by the government"? does that mean that medical services are free? that "the government" - who might that be? - should pay to compensate for some individual's wrongdoing??) ... although not quite even that.

Yup, general medical costs are covered by the NHS in the UK. (Had any experience with the NHS lately? I have.) Where you're at, which I assume you're not talking about in this post, although it is certainly relevant to the issue, I'm not even sure that it is accurate to say that general medical costs are covered by the government, since that is the case only for individuals without private insurance. Should everybody else who contributes to that private insurance be dinged for the wrongful running down of one of the insureds?

Are prescription drugs "covered by the government"? Prostheses? Dental reconstructive work? Assistive devices? Physical and occupational therapy for as long as it's needed?

But mainly, you just didn't quote at all. Because this is what was actually said (emphasis added to help you out):

I can no longer earn my living as an olympic tightrope walker,
so I sue the driver. I win my case and am awarded £1,000,000
to cover medical, living and other costs for the rest of my life.

You know. Things like groceries, rent/mortgage, clothing, pet food, newspapers ... all those non-medical things that people tend to need, and to work in order to be able to pay for.

Perhaps the UK has no-fault car insurance. I don't really understand this stuff; I just pay my ever-rising premiums. But I'm not even seeing how this would apply to a pedestrian who was run down. What insurance, no-fault or otherwise, would a pedestrian carry that would cover his/her living expenses for 50 years as a quadriplegic? Why should a victim of a wrongful act be condemned to live on the meagre dole for the rest of his/her life -- and why should "the government" pay those benefits to someone who would otherwise have been working and has been wrongfully made unable to do so?

Oh, by the way. Where there are public-payer health plans, the plan generally recovers what it pays out in an insured's medical expenses, out of damage awards or settlements, which awards and settlements do include "medical costs". Just exactly as private insurance companies do. Why, after all, should taxpayers/contributors pay the costs associated with personal injuries caused by someone's wrongful act, any more than anyone else should??

It's called "subrogation". In Ontario, for example:
http://www.canlii.ca/on/sta/cson/20030812/r.s.o.1990c.h.6/whole.html#P848_90002

Subrogation

30. (1) Where, as the result of the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of another, an insured person suffers personal injuries for which he or she receives insured services under this Act, the Plan is subrogated to any right of the insured person to recover the cost incurred for past insured services and the cost that will probably be incurred for future insured services, and the General Manager may bring action in the name of the Plan or in the name of that person for the recovery of such costs.

Can't find the legislative provision, but found this from the UK:
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/library/lccp144/app-7.htm

A.81 European countries differ in their approach to recovery by the collateral source of the cost of goods and services provided to the plaintiff. Most European jurisdictions allow the social security provider, or private health insurer, to recoup the benefits provided by means of subrogation. The great majority specifically provide for State recoupment,(10) although in a few jurisdictions there are no provisions for State recoupment through subrogation or otherwise.(11)

(The "collateral source" would be the driver's insurance company, in the case of an award against an insured driver -- and the driver, in the case of an award against an uninsured driver.)


"I had him read your post, and we could be wrong,
but it appears you either intentionally left out
a critical piece of info applicable to your "hypothetical"
scenario, or you are not what you are claiming to be.

Well, perhaps that there -- subrogation, and the reasons for it -- the "critical piece of info" that you left out, and what you're claiming to be, that you're not, is sufficiently informed that you can make these kinds of ... insinuations.

Or perhaps you just forgot about the bits that you didn't quote, and didn't bother asking for your expert's opinion on them. (In any event, does being born and raised in the US make you an expert on insurance law? Why would being born and raised in the UK make someone an expert on that?)

I mean, you've given an either/or option. And in fact, both your either and your or appear to amount to only one thing. Lucky you said you "could be wrong" about them, so that they remained mere insinuations, given how wrong you appear to be.

.

[Spoonman]

79. That was a

brilliant riposte to demonstrate your ability to quote the total falicies of my post, and thank you for all your wisdom and knowledge from those of us who never even gave shit what your opinion on the subject was in the first place, so why is it that you feel so compelled to continuously attempt to provoke arguments with any and every post you read, with great amounts of run on bullshit that demonstrates your apparent elitist attitude for all other persons on this board regardless of their position on any subject matter, which you have demonstrated several times, so don’t try to deny it.What was quoted was a very simple statement that the person from whom it was quoted understood it perfectly unlike yourself who insists on using your fucked up lawyer speak logic to attack people on this board in a blatant attempt to elevate your own self esteem to some height you never seem to be capable of reaching own your own without managing to tear down any and every persons writings and opinions.
Your intense knowledge and ability to divert the question into a long winded and often unclear accumulation of repeat verbage never ceases to amuse many of us, for the lengths you will go to attempt to validate your point are most often lost in the vast fecal abundance of your analysis of simple sentences that are easily understood by everyone here except yourself, this leads us all to believe your incapable of interpreting statements at face value unless they are posted by yourself, which often leads to the same tactic your employ being used against you to which your standard response is ooh ooh moderators i'm being lied about, i'm being lied about somebody look at me , I never said that, why was my post deleted, which we all know is a crock of shit, cause we're capable of reading axactlly what you wrote, however seeing as your attempts to proclaim yourself as an expert on everything you ever read on this board have often left you looking quite stupid and obviously attempting to cover up that fact with endless garbage such as the spewing shit I'm typing out right now.
Please feel free to alert the mods, as I really don't give a shit what you do and have never given a shit about what you do or say since the very first unprovoked attack on you made on me when you addressed me as, aren't you the little clever boots, in a thread that had nothing to do with guns or any political agenda whatsoever, with that in mind I call your attention back to that thread and ask you, what you think you achieved with that, was I correct in assuming your weak constitution coupled with a need to degrade people, because that was exactlly what that first attack was without doubt, and you will find it very hard to convince anyone should they no the facts of the attack you made on my second post here at DU, thank goodness I recognized you as a total ass then, and kept right on going with my life, which by the way is something you seem to be lacking in seeing as you can find the time to write damn near thesis length replies to posts that are less than two paragraphs long, and are written to be interpreted at face value, which has already been address previously in this post, and therefore it should be unnecessary repeat the same thing over again in the same manner that you do.
As you can see this entire post is written with numerous typos, run-on sentences and I'm sure many other grammatical and logical errors that I'm sure will make you cream all over your chair with anticipation, however I must include that this was done intentionally in an attempt to have you spend the rest of the afternoon slapping at your little keyboard breaking down this post so that we, the commoners, can resume our little debates without your vast enlightenment of the Kama Sutra and other expertises you possess and wish to demonstrate with such vigor.

[iverglas]

85. whew

Was that as good for you as it was for me?

.

[iverglas]

13. will somebody ask jody for me

"shouldn't a 'fair minded person' attack the causal agents
in terms of contribution to the overall accidential deat rate?"

... why a genuinely "fair minded person" would not take into consideration things like the PROPORTION of contacts with those "causal agents" in which an accidental death occurs, the PREVENTABILITY of the accidental deaths in question, the LETHALITY of the "causal agents" in the event of accident happening, BARRIERS to reducing the numbers/proportions of accidental deaths involved in contacts with those "causal agents" ...? Just for starters?

Maybe someone could also ask her why she is so firmly resolved not to acknowledge the relevance of said factors ...

"If a person spends several times more effort on reducing
'firearm related accidential deaths', than on 'motor vehicle
accidential deaths', then what adjectives should be used to
classify such a person?
Clearly "fair minded" is inappropriate."

So ... I wonder how one might characterize a person who spends all this effort and still ... ignores ... all of the very significant differences between the death rates in question in terms of proportion of contacts resulting in death (or hell, injury), preventability of the deaths (or injuries) in question, lethality of the causal agents when accidents occur, barriers to reducing numbers/proportions of accidental deaths ... .

"Fair-minded" certainly isn't what springs to my mind, either.

But heck, for all I know, such a person might be perfectly fair-minded, and just addle-brained.

.

[MrBenchley]

15. I wonder how fair minded

someone who adamantly refuses to pretend one of the leading causative agents even exists can be..

[nn2004]

31. What new gun law would have prevented this?

Any opinion or was your post a hit-n-run against gun owners?

[RoeBear]

33. CO hits...

...but never runs.

[CO Liberal]

34. Oh, I'm Here

I posted all these stories last week to show that they type of storines where innocent people are shot are far more common than stories about the so-called "defensive" uses of guns.

[dustind]

54. because 98% of the time...

no one is shot in self defence. I have used knives to save myself a few times, I never stabbed, and only once had to say a thing. Almost no one in dumb enough to attack someone holding a firearm.

Another thing, agendas and ratings, both do not favor stories of how someone was not raped or killed.

What is it with spamming of stories lately, I garentee I could post 100 stories about defensive uses of firearms, what point are you guys trying to make with spam.

[CO Liberal]

55. You're On!!!!!

Let's see you post one hundred stories of RECENT instances where a gun was used defensively. The best that another pro-gunner could do last week was several stories a few years old.........

After all, didn't you "garentee" you could do it?????

[Spoonman]

60. Excuse me,

"The best that another pro-gunner could do last week was several stories a few years old........."

Maybe you just have selective memory, or your full of.....

http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/2422751/detail.html

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2003/08/05/48661.php?sp1=rgj&sp2=News&sp3=Local+News


http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/081403_NW_atmrobber.html

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/080903/new_20030809015.shtml


http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=59620

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/6485706.htm

http://www.click10.com/news/2373119/detail.html

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2043526

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1392944&nav=0RaPHLMO

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/todays_editorial/article/0,1426,MCA_537_2152471,00.html

[CO Liberal]

62. Please Re-Check Your Math, Spoonman

Ten does not equal 100, even using fuzzy math.

[Spoonman]

65. Please re-check your mouth

"The best that another pro-gunner could do last week was several stories a few years old........."

[CO Liberal]

91. My Mouth Is Working Fine

As are all my other body parts, with the exception of my accident-damaged back.

And contrary to what some people may think, my brain is functioning perfectly well.

[MrBenchley]

61. And out of that small pile of stale old crap

we found one "defensive gun use" was an outright fraud while another was a guy who almost killed his own son in the attempt.

[Spoonman]

66. Try again,

I believe you have yet to read the articles in the above links.

Trying to spin it before you even read it, that's pretty bad.

[MrBenchley]

68. Spoon, do you even try to follow what is said here?

The question was about the last little pile of stale crap you unloaded here....of which one was an outright fraud and the other was a guy who almost shot his own son.

And ten is not a hundred....except maybe in RKBA fantasyland.

[Spoonman]

71. Hello McBenchly

these are totally different links.

Next time read before you dump your pantload.

[MrBenchley]

76. Hello spoon

CO was talking about your earlier links.. As was I.

[Spoonman]

80. Well, those were my earlier links

posted right after both of you expressed your desire for more "current" stories.

[MrBenchley]

82. BFD

I expressed no such desire...I just pointed out that two of the stale stories you spread out before turned out to be horseshit.

[Spoonman]

83. You seem

to have some trouble remembering what you said, and who said what.

Which brings me to my next point boys and girls.

Crack is bad

[MrBenchley]

86. Gee, spoon, the only one unclear is you

I know what CO said...and he seems to know what I said.

You on the other hand, seem to have the delusion that I gave a crap about your dishonest "guns saved me" stories....other than to note some of them turn out to be complete horseshit.