mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
Quote
Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more big government telling the States what to do. I guess you are only conservative when it fits your opinions.
How so?
Does it super cede the state's right to prevent someone from possessing any weapon? I would think it does, but I guess we will soon see that in a Chicago court to find out for certain.
Does this deny waiting periods for guns? Could suicidal people be denied their constitutional right to carry a weapon? Would that be constitutional? Is Scalia's list dicta or part of the holding? Interesting to see people call Scalia an activist judge now because of this.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteReally! A firm decision pro 2nd would be a great day, IMO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah it would.
HOLY BATSHIT
we agree on something for once....
now dont go getting all teary eyed on me now Mike.
*faints*
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
But the important question is, will people need a license to carry a crutch?!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-police-crutch-shooting-web-jun27,0,5022518.story
Wonder what would happen if a citizen shot that guy 4 times?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-police-crutch-shooting-web-jun27,0,5022518.story
QuoteA Forest View police officer shot and wounded a man threatening him with a crutch outside a sports bar near the west suburb overnight, police said.
Wonder what would happen if a citizen shot that guy 4 times?
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more big government telling the States what to do. I guess you are only conservative when it fits your opinions.
How so?
Does it super cede the state's right to prevent someone from possessing any weapon? I would think it does, but I guess we will soon see that in a Chicago court to find out for certain.
Does this deny waiting periods for guns? Could suicidal people be denied their constitutional right to carry a weapon? Would that be constitutional? Is Scalia's list dicta or part of the holding? Interesting to see people call Scalia an activist judge now because of this.
So in essance, you are saying the states have the right to ignore the Constitution ?
I thought all you libs loved the courts?
How will this make big gov bigger?
As to the rest of your questions, and as I posted earlier, this ruling is the begining of the debate and court cases.Now, the questions you raise will have to be answered under the sun shine of this precident setting ruling
BTY
Who has called Scalia an activist in this thread?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Also, not sure where Obama has looked like a fool on much . . .
Indeed. This decision supports his stated position:
"There's been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation."
>Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more
>big government telling the States what to do.
No so much, I think. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that some regulation of guns by state/local governments (including, potentially, registration) was OK, but that states could not remove the right to bear arms without clear reason (like mental incapacity.)
Indeed. This decision supports his stated position:
"There's been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation."
>Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more
>big government telling the States what to do.
No so much, I think. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that some regulation of guns by state/local governments (including, potentially, registration) was OK, but that states could not remove the right to bear arms without clear reason (like mental incapacity.)
Quote> is all or nothing then should'nt they all be?
If you mean "we should defend them all" then definitely.
Let's hope the courts do for the fourth amendment what they did for the second today.
Indeed. However, if you take a look at the history of the jurisprudence surrounding the 4th Amendment, you'd see just how far 4th Amendment portections have come in just the last 50 years.
However, I hoep the court does continue to make these protections even greater than today.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more big government telling the States what to do. I guess you are only conservative when it fits your opinions.
How so?
Does it super cede the state's right to prevent someone from possessing any weapon? I would think it does, but I guess we will soon see that in a Chicago court to find out for certain.
Does this deny waiting periods for guns? Could suicidal people be denied their constitutional right to carry a weapon? Would that be constitutional? Is Scalia's list dicta or part of the holding? Interesting to see people call Scalia an activist judge now because of this.
The only one seeming to call Scalia 'activist' over this seems to be you. If you'd bothered to read the news stories covering the decision, you might have noticed this:
>>>Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Clearly this forum is the only place on the interwebs where someone may be claiming that. I was talking about in the media, the blogs, etc.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
rushmc 23
QuoteAlso, not sure where Obama has looked like a fool on much . . .
Indeed. This decision supports his stated position: But goes against his votes or non votes
"There's been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation."
>Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more
>big government telling the States what to do.
No so much, I think. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that some regulation of guns by state/local governments (including, potentially, registration) was OK, but that states could not remove the right to bear arms without clear reason (like mental incapacity.)
It appears that at least 2 things have been answered very clearly by the court.
1 The right to own and have arms is and "individual" right and,
2 We have the right to have a loaded and unlocked weapon in our home should we chose to.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteClearly this forum is the only place on the interwebs where someone may be claiming that. I was talking about in the media, the blogs, etc.
It would have helped had you made that distinction in your original post.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteScalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Exactly, he said nothing. Just means he opened it up to another round of interpretations by lower courts.....which means we will see this back in the SCOTUS again if the NRA doesn't like what they come up with. Seems like this is going to get messy.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
rushmc 23
QuoteClearly this forum is the only place on the interwebs where someone may be claiming that. I was talking about in the media, the blogs, etc.
I dont go to blogs much. (I have not even tried to find many)
Can you point me to a few media sites and blogs calling him an activist please?
sounds interesting to me. I would like to see the perspective and context of those comments
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteScalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Exactly, he said nothing. Just means he opened it up to another round of interpretations by lower courts.....which means we will see this back in the SCOTUS again if the NRA doesn't like what they come up with. Seems like this is going to get messy.
I'm sure it will - there's a lot of trash to be taken out, in that regard.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,118
>But goes against his votes or non votes.
Hmm. He voted to prohibit confiscation of guns during emergencies, so your claim is not 100% true.
Hmm. He voted to prohibit confiscation of guns during emergencies, so your claim is not 100% true.
rushmc 23
Quote>But goes against his votes or non votes.
Hmm. He voted to prohibit confiscation of guns during emergencies, so your claim is not 100% true.
Well, that would be an easy vote to make if you want to make law where no one can have a gun to begin with
But anyway, I get and see your point
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteFeingold and Kagen were among 320 members of Congress that signed a brief supporting the overturning of the ban.
So much for those 'crazy' activist liberal democrats.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
One thing I find very disconcerting about this whole Obama/McCain election is no one seems to be able to agree on the "data". Maybe we should start another thread and quote our sources, then validate those sources.
We are all engines of karma
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteFeingold and Kagen were among 320 members of Congress that signed a brief supporting the overturning of the ban.
So much for those 'crazy' activist liberal democrats.
Congress members are allowed if not encouraged to be activists. I see that as their role. That allows ideas, issues and topics to raised and debated. And then VOTED on. If the people do not like the voting record then they can VOTE them out.
Judges are apointed however. Judges are not supposed to play as a legislator can. They are not to judge based on thier biases. (I know that bias will always have some impact)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuote
Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more big government telling the States what to do. I guess you are only conservative when it fits your opinions.
How so?
Does it super cede the state's right to prevent someone from possessing any weapon? I would think it does, but I guess we will soon see that in a Chicago court to find out for certain.
Does this deny waiting periods for guns? Could suicidal people be denied their constitutional right to carry a weapon? Would that be constitutional? Is Scalia's list dicta or part of the holding? Interesting to see people call Scalia an activist judge now because of this.
Actually, it's more telling states what they CANNOT do. The Federal Constitution provides a floor of rights that, thanks to the 14th Amendment, the states must pay heed. This is the incorporation doctrine, although the 2nd Amendment has not been specifically incorporated to the states.
Under the argument, a state's right to maintain colored drinking fountains is an intrusion by the federal government. I do not think such a situation stands as unwarranted federal intrusion on a state.
Prior to 1961, the 4th Amendment was not really incorporated to the states until the 1960's.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuoteScalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Exactly, he said nothing. Just means he opened it up to another round of interpretations by lower courts.....which means we will see this back in the SCOTUS again if the NRA doesn't like what they come up with. Seems like this is going to get messy.
Well, the issue of where to draw those lines was not an issue. The issue was solely related to whether prohibiting a functional handgun in a private residence is across the line. The court said it was.
Now, it is up to other cases to determine exactly where that line is drawn in the future. Expect 20 years of it before we have any real ideas.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
No doubt!!!
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites