Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11  
    Member Tantal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    34
    Someone, and I can't remember where, sued a local police chief for rufusing to sign the ATF form allowing him to have a suppressor or SBR even though he was qualified and it was not illegal to possess in that jurisdiction. The chief got his ass handed to him. He was sued personally and was required to pay the complainant's legal fees as well as sign the form. Once some of these partisan hacks start having to shell out their own money for violating people's rights, it'll stop.
    I'd rather have a daughter in a whorehouse than a son in the University of Texas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    I applaud what the SCOTUS did with Heller but they left the door wide open for "reasonable regulation" not to be reasonable.
    Heller was no win. It's basically the judicial version of a politician saying they support an individual right to bear arms and then drafting a bill to close the gun show loophole or reinstate the assault weapons ban.

    Mark my words, at some point it will be used as the justification for more gun control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by FeebMaster View Post
    Heller was no win. It's basically the judicial version of a politician saying they support an individual right to bear arms and then drafting a bill to close the gun show loophole or reinstate the assault weapons ban.

    Mark my words, at some point it will be used as the justification for more gun control.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say it was no win because of the statement that the 2nd is an individual right. However, the shit in there about "reasonable regulation" will be the basis for all kinds of unreasonableness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    I wouldn't go as far as to say it was no win because of the statement that the 2nd is an individual right. However, the shit in there about "reasonable regulation" will be the basis for all kinds of unreasonableness.
    Yes...That is some real serious Orwell "shit".
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    I wouldn't go as far as to say it was no win because of the statement that the 2nd is an individual right. However, the shit in there about "reasonable regulation" will be the basis for all kinds of unreasonableness.
    That's just it. They say individual right and then treat it like a government granted privilege. It's feel-good case law, at best. It's like naming some bill the heroes act and tucking the 4th plank of the communist manifesto into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member dixierat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Out in the sticks
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    I wouldn't go as far as to say it was no win because of the statement that the 2nd is an individual right. However, the shit in there about "reasonable regulation" will be the basis for all kinds of unreasonableness.
    Quote Originally Posted by FeebMaster View Post
    That's just it. They say individual right and then treat it like a government granted privilege. It's feel-good case law, at best. It's like naming some bill the heroes act and tucking the 4th plank of the communist manifesto into it.

    The new DC law is just the old DC law dressed up in Barbie Doll clothes so it looks pretty. I suspect the Congress may actually attempt ot pass laws requiring a certain amount of training in firearms before ownership or some such.

    When I was a kid, we were the United States of America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Now, we're America, Land of the Sheep and Home of the Nave.

    Live each day as if you're going to die tomorrow. Learn each day as if you'll live forever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Yes...That is some real serious Orwell "shit".
    Every right is subject to "reasonable regulation."

    The free exercise clause doesn't allow you to start up a religion whose central tenets are kidnapping and sacrificing virgins.

    Freedom of the press doesn't allow you to start a newspaper where you advocate insurrection against the United States.

    The right requiring warrants to issue before a search doesn't apply if you're committing a crime in plain view.

    There are a lot of "reasonable regulation[s]" on Constitutional rights. There are some gripes with Heller. No standard of review was described. The language "reasonable regulation" does suggest intermediate scrutiny, while it should be strict scrutiny, since it is an enumerated Constitutional right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Vepr
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    The free exercise clause doesn't allow you to start up a religion whose central tenets are kidnapping and sacrificing virgins.
    Damn... guess I need to come up with another idea for tax exemption.... :( :p
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Every right is subject to "reasonable regulation."
    If the day ever comes when a real tyranny raises it's ugly head here, I'm certain that will be a favorite law and talking point of the despots.

    I just can't look at it that way. Regulation has become a dirty word to me and "reasonable regulation" is just another one of those broadly defined legal E's that get's turned into a free for all in the wrong hands.....And it ALWAYS ends up in the wrong hands.

    That term should be blasphemous to all conservatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    The free exercise clause doesn't allow you to start up a religion whose central tenets are kidnapping and sacrificing virgins.
    kidnapping and sacrificing would of course violate the "depriving of life and liberty". So no need for regulation there.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Freedom of the press doesn't allow you to start a newspaper where you advocate insurrection against the United States.
    That depends on what you mean by insurrection. There are at least several party systems I am aware of in this country dedicated to undermining the current USA state system. 1. Revolutionary Communist Party USA; with there own website to boot. 2. World Socialist Party of the USA: advocating the one world socialist government.
    Now...I may despise those SOB's, but our founders's were traitors and insurrectionists to England. I'm certain that they had every intention of ALWAYS having that "option on the table"...(to use a little Bush lingo):D.... for the citizens of this country.
    Now they strongly believed the system they designed was strong enough that it would never come to that, but your belief is relatively new compared to what the founders intended IMO.

    One of my favorite political philosophers J.S. Mill (who is also a godfather of conservative thought) would also disagree that any point of view should ever be silenced as "silencing the expression of an opinion robs the human race".

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    The right requiring warrants to issue before a search doesn't apply if you're committing a crime in plain view.
    Agreed...but that goes back to unreasonable search and seizure. still no reason to regulate.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    There are a lot of "reasonable regulation[s]" on Constitutional rights. There are some gripes with Heller. No standard of review was described. The language "reasonable regulation" does suggest intermediate scrutiny, while it should be strict scrutiny, since it is an enumerated Constitutional right.
    And that's the bottom line. The language is still there to find the inevitable "loophole".

    The second amendment is completely an undeniably an individual right as are all of the Bill of Rights.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    If the day ever comes when a real tyranny raises it's ugly head here, I'm certain that will be a favorite law and talking point of the despots.

    I just can't look at it that way. Regulation has become a dirty word to me and "reasonable regulation" is just another one of those broadly defined legal E's that get's turned into a free for all in the wrong hands.....And it ALWAYS ends up in the wrong hands.
    Well, like I said, Constitutional jurisprudence is full of words like "regulation" and "reasonable," it's part of our law now, and there's little chance of changing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    kidnapping and sacrificing would of course violate the "depriving of life and liberty". So no need for regulation there.
    The Constitution has no power that can be enforced against private citizens. How would you like it if your neighbors sued you for infringing their free speech rights? Sorry, this is a government restriction on your First Amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    That depends on what you mean by insurrection.
    OK, so how about another example: Libel. By enforcing suits against libel, the government is regulating what speech may be made. Or take trademarks or copyrights. Both of those restrict "free speech." Or the famous example of shouting fire in a movie theater.

    All examples of free speech restrictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Agreed...but that goes back to unreasonable search and seizure. still no reason to regulate.
    Unreasonable search & seizure is coupled with the warrant requirement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    And that's the bottom line. The language is still there to find the inevitable "loophole".
    Without "loopholes" there could be no restrictions on the right to own and possess handguns. I think that regulations against ownership by young children, convicted felons, and mentally insane are reasonable restrictions that could be imposed on ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    The second amendment is completely an undeniably an individual right as are all of the Bill of Rights.
    I completely agree with you. There are no "collective rights" anywhere else in the Constitution. Even the "right to assemble" is an individual right. The idea of a collective right was invented as an excuse to get around the clear intent of the Second Amendment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •