Worcester has a Level 1 Trauma center. Better than you will find in many parts of the country.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
KBCraig
NES Member
Thread drift, much?
Springfield, not Worcester (according to Wikipedia)
There’s five in Boston, and one in Burlington
The UMass Memorial Trauma Center, verified as a Level 1 since 1987 by the American College of Surgeons, is the most technologically advanced emergency care facility in the area and is supported by dedicated operating rooms, intensive care units and nearby X-ray and imaging suites.
dcmdon
NES Member
You all can debate all the details. But the reality is that Boston has some of the best doctors in the world. I write this as someone whose wife was saved by one, that I'm absolutely sure I wouldn't have gotten back where we used to live in CT.
KBCraig
NES Member
Isn't this a post-Bruen thread, not a Boston medical thread?
Who has the best pizza in Boston?
PIE POLL!!!!
yanquidog
NES Member
Attachments
Dude anyone who rides on a helicopter from a bad wreck in nocentma gets sent to umass. It must not be that bad.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
And she's now a district judge for MA
Did he ever get an answer?
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,038
- Likes
- 21,192
I'm sure that the MA politicians are proud of her record and position.
She's a Fed judge for the District of MA is what I meant. She got it on her renomination ( U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 118th Congress - 1st Session ) . She was a deputy AG for MA as she points out in the vid and also became deputy state solicitor before her confirmation.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Interesting article on Rahimi - Clarence Thomas dissent:
Rahimi Decision: The Clarence Thomas Dissent
America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownershipjpfo.org
Cases considering what “violent crime” and “dangerous” mean wrt felons and firearms.
”… some jurists considering Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) have cautioned that “the legislature cannot have unchecked power to designate a group of persons as “dangerous” and thereby disarm them. Congress could claim that immigrants, the indigent, or the politically unpopular were presumptively “dangerous” and eliminate their Second Amendment rights without judicial review.”
Reminds me of Julius Caesar’s line in the eponymously titled play “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much, such men are dangerous," But in this case, these liberal lawyers favoring gun control unsurprisingly forget that Democrats spent four years felonizing misdemeanors and unexpiring statutes of limitations.
Whoa!!!!!
Bmcl322
NES Member
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
KBCraig
NES Member
Second Amendment Protects Marijuana Users Unless There's Concrete Showing They're Dangerous
From U.S. v. Cooper, decided today by Eighth Circuit Judge David Stras, joined by Judges Steven Grasz and Jonathan Kobes: In United States v. Veasley (8th
reason.com
This is nice, for the 8th district. Where is that?Second Amendment Protects Marijuana Users Unless There's Concrete Showing They're Dangerous
From U.S. v. Cooper, decided today by Eighth Circuit Judge David Stras, joined by Judges Steven Grasz and Jonathan Kobes: In United States v. Veasley (8th
Another minor win, thanks to Bruen.
Fritz the Cat
NES Member
St Louis.
KBCraig
NES Member
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas.
MaverickNH
NES Member
”It is often taken as a matter of faith that those on the legal right favor originalist approaches as the best — and arguably only — way to do constitutional law. Yet recent efforts in conservative states to require strict scrutiny for gun cases reject that orthodoxy.”
The author is decidedly anti-gun, using the logical manipulation: If you accept X you must reject Y, Since you accept X abut and Y, your acceptance of X is invalid.
In this case, that means: If you accept Originalism , you must reject Strict Scrutiny. Since you accept both, your acceptance of Originalism is invalid.
The fault lies in the shaky assertion and Originalism and Strict Scrutiny are incompatible. They can certainly co-exist - and do! As a double-whammy on gun controllers that they struggle to dismiss.
pastera
NES Member
A very good overview of the issue - take this seriously.
pastera
NES Member
The author takes patently and obviously absurd position that a state's constitution cannot protect a right more explicitly and tightly than the federal Constitution's protections.
”It is often taken as a matter of faith that those on the legal right favor originalist approaches as the best — and arguably only — way to do constitutional law. Yet recent efforts in conservative states to require strict scrutiny for gun cases reject that orthodoxy.”
The author is decidedly anti-gun, using the logical manipulation: If you accept X you must reject Y, Since you accept X abut and Y, your acceptance of X is invalid.
In this case, that means: If you accept Originalism , you must reject Strict Scrutiny. Since you accept both, your acceptance of Originalism is invalid.
The fault lies in the shaky assertion and Originalism and Strict Scrutiny are incompatible. They can certainly co-exist - and do! As a double-whammy on gun controllers that they struggle to dismiss.
This is ridiculous and unsupportable as the Bill of Rights is a limit on government action - a state is completely open to barring itself from any infringement allowed by the federal constitution of an enumerated right - the 14th amendment only limits the imposition of further restrictions by the states of any enumerate right.
pastera
NES Member
I'll need to add that to the reading list - I don't partake but I trust Volokh's take on it and that's seems to be the opinion is a good one for us.Second Amendment Protects Marijuana Users Unless There's Concrete Showing They're Dangerous
From U.S. v. Cooper, decided today by Eighth Circuit Judge David Stras, joined by Judges Steven Grasz and Jonathan Kobes: In United States v. Veasley (8th
What needs to be looked at is the DUI prohibitions post Rahimi - that's going to effect far more people than pot use.
Edit: The opinion relies heavily on a previous 8th circuit decision (Veasely) that I haven't read but has some great potential for citations
In other words, Congress can't ban entire classes of people as dangerous and therefore able to be categorically disarmed. You must individually found be demonstrably dangerous in order to be disarmed. That the class you belong to is more prone or apt to be dangerous is not a disqualifier, you yourself must present as an objective danger.
Last edited:
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,798
- Likes
- 36,275
”It is often taken as a matter of faith that those on the legal right favor originalist approaches as the best — and arguably only — way to do constitutional law. Yet recent efforts in conservative states to require strict scrutiny for gun cases reject that orthodoxy.”
The author is decidedly anti-gun, using the logical manipulation: If you accept X you must reject Y, Since you accept X abut and Y, your acceptance of X is invalid.
In this case, that means: If you accept Originalism , you must reject Strict Scrutiny. Since you accept both, your acceptance of Originalism is invalid.
The fault lies in the shaky assertion and Originalism and Strict Scrutiny are incompatible. They can certainly co-exist - and do! As a double-whammy on gun controllers that they struggle to dismiss.
It's teh same logic used by the dolts on Ancient Aliens. "IF you believe that lights turn on and off, then you have to believe that aliens exist, right?" Wait. WHAT?
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
That video was excellent.
