Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:09 am


Rules Brads Guns Rainier Arms McCallen Killer Innovations Fessleman Firearms
WGO Chat Room Rehv Arms Vantage Reloading
Gear Fortis WCA 2A Ind. Pintos WAC
Calendar




Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
 Amy Coney Barrett is very PRO Second Amendment 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Pierce County
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018
Posts: 320
I can imagine what Trump asked her: “Are you willing to sit there patiently while the Democrats hurl every vile insult at you that they can think of?” They’ll accuse her of adopting the two black Haitian kids only for political purposes, and of being controlled by Catholicism. She’s certainly smart enough to know that nothing she can say will make the Democrats happy, so she can reply with “that is incorrect, Senator.” A lifetime USSC seat is worth the three days of harassment.


Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:40 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Location: Seattle
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018
Posts: 146
leadcounsel wrote:
Tod wrote:
Fishinpnw wrote:
Just curious, which unalienable rights are you talking about?


I'm talking about the 2nd amendment unalienable rights, but I'm using the liberal's own weapon against them, rachel maddow. Unalienable rights are unalienable rights, 1st, 2nd, or other, and I like the rachel maddow video because here she is defending our very own stance, that our rights are non-negotiable. I've used this video to silence many a liberal who has said that our rights can be limited by politicians.


It's a serious question asking for a serious reply.

Regarding the 1A: Should there be any restrictions on it, such as military members speaking on matters of highly sensitive or secret information, like attack planning or missile launch codes? Or speech like threats or inciting violence?

Regarding the 2A: Should there be any restrictions, such as disarming a criminal suspect incident to detention, or disarming a prison population, or disarming the dangerous mentally insane who are fit to be in society and not locked up (like a split personality disorder, or paranoid delusional type...).


Valid points. Restrictions on 2nd amendment? In constitutional carry states, for example Vermont, or Arizona, residents can carry concealed, no permits, no applications for permits, no registration, no permission required by beseeching, begging to some exalted asshole.

The restriction comes if they are a felon, or have demonstrated that they are a danger to society whether it be by a murder, rape, or robbery they committed, or they had a collection of kidnapped women in their basement.

First amendment? Similar, we can speak our minds no restrictions of permits, registration, etc., but if we shout "fire" in a movie theater that causes injury or worse, now we end up in prison. As for the military, it's been decided already, and we each signed a contract, myself I had a top secret clearance I waited two years to obtain, that contract said: "hush".

If your next question is, "Who decides these things?" leading us to the necessity of a "supreme court", well the court has shamefully been reduced to a whore house, a stacked court that we cannot trust, and they don't grant God given Natural rights anyway, so I prefer to leave them in the corner wearing a "Dunce Cap" and relegating them to matters that are not as powerfully important as our inalienable rights. Yes I see this may get tricky but so be it, I still say they are NOT to be entrusted with our most cherished and important inalienable ("unalienable" as per Declaration of Independence, "inalienable" per Merriam Webster).

I've had enough of those whores, get enough liberals and you get a liberal decision, get enough conservatives and you get a conservative decision, like I said, a stacked court of pandering whores and RBG was THE most egregious example. Enough is enough already.

For now? What I do is damage control, that's what you see here with my words, we've heard rachel maddow attack, ruthlessly attack, no pun intended, our second amendment rights, then this sick cunt (pardon the expression, I'm from NYC and if I'm breaking rules let me know, or offending let me know, but I checked the rules and I saw no prohibition) turns around and tells us our inalienable rights are not subject to a vote. Well which is it you sick cunt? As you can see I have great contempt for power mad control freaks like maddow, or killary, or anyone for that matter.

So my use of her serves two purposes, it negates her attack on our "inalienable rights" because like she said, they are not subject to a vote, and demonstrates her hypocrisy, reducing her credibility among rational people. We're at war, spiritually, philosophically, and now, it seems, we are on the brink of a dirty war all over the USA, and I feel I've fallen down on the job of doing what little, and it seems too little, what little I can do, and what I do is speak to the hearts and minds of anyone who will listen, and in whom my words strike a chord.


Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Pierce County
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016
Posts: 1152
No matter who Trump nominates from whatever background they have the Dems will go after them. They could go after a trangender black person and they'd just call them a sell out.


Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:42 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Location: Seattle
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018
Posts: 146
Ace wrote:
No matter who Trump nominates from whatever background they have the Dems will go after them. They could go after a trangender black person and they'd just call them a sell out.



You gotta admit it would be the ultimate if Trump chose a gay black Muslim transgender woman as the court nominee. Liberal's heads would explode as they attacked THE most sacred cow in their universe.


Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:06 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: South Seattle
Joined: Thu May 2, 2013
Posts: 7216
Real Name: Steve
Tod wrote:
Ace wrote:
No matter who Trump nominates from whatever background they have the Dems will go after them. They could go after a trangender black person and they'd just call them a sell out.



You gotta admit it would be the ultimate if Trump chose a gay black Muslim transgender woman as the court nominee. Liberal's heads would explode as they attacked THE most sacred cow in their universe.



You do understand that that person would probably not be a texturalist, right?


Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:13 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Location: Seattle
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018
Posts: 146
NWGunner wrote:
Tod wrote:
Ace wrote:
No matter who Trump nominates from whatever background they have the Dems will go after them. They could go after a trangender black person and they'd just call them a sell out.



You gotta admit it would be the ultimate if Trump chose a gay black Muslim transgender woman as the court nominee. Liberal's heads would explode as they attacked THE most sacred cow in their universe.



You do understand that that person would probably not be a texturalist, right?


A man can dream can't he... why spoil my wet dream??? :rofl9:

Oh, and because I know I better clarify that, the dream being a gay black Muslim transgender woman who is rock solid pro-constitution and Bill of Rights who would cause liberal's heads to explode they'd be so confused at which to do, attack their sacred cow or praise their sacred cow.

Imagine such a person, Muslim Brigitte Gabriel, gay Milo Yiannopoulus, black Thomas Sowell, all conservatives, all rolled into one...

And for the record, I believe that jukk0u and I would even give such a person citizenship in Jukk0u-Land. :thumbsup2:


Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:02 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: South Seattle
Joined: Thu May 2, 2013
Posts: 7216
Real Name: Steve
:ROFLMAO:

I just meant a radical Muslim wouldn’t support a texturalist for the court...

All your other adjectives are, potentially, non sequiturs...


Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:16 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Snohomish
Joined: Tue Jan 8, 2019
Posts: 191
Tod wrote:
leadcounsel wrote:
Tod wrote:
Fishinpnw wrote:
Just curious, which unalienable rights are you talking about?


I'm talking about the 2nd amendment unalienable rights, but I'm using the liberal's own weapon against them, rachel maddow. Unalienable rights are unalienable rights, 1st, 2nd, or other, and I like the rachel maddow video because here she is defending our very own stance, that our rights are non-negotiable. I've used this video to silence many a liberal who has said that our rights can be limited by politicians.


It's a serious question asking for a serious reply.

Regarding the 1A: Should there be any restrictions on it, such as military members speaking on matters of highly sensitive or secret information, like attack planning or missile launch codes? Or speech like threats or inciting violence?

Regarding the 2A: Should there be any restrictions, such as disarming a criminal suspect incident to detention, or disarming a prison population, or disarming the dangerous mentally insane who are fit to be in society and not locked up (like a split personality disorder, or paranoid delusional type...).


Valid points. Restrictions on 2nd amendment? In constitutional carry states, for example Vermont, or Arizona, residents can carry concealed, no permits, no applications for permits, no registration, no permission required by beseeching, begging to some exalted asshole.

The restriction comes if they are a felon, or have demonstrated that they are a danger to society whether it be by a murder, rape, or robbery they committed, or they had a collection of kidnapped women in their basement.

First amendment? Similar, we can speak our minds no restrictions of permits, registration, etc., but if we shout "fire" in a movie theater that causes injury or worse, now we end up in prison. As for the military, it's been decided already, and we each signed a contract, myself I had a top secret clearance I waited two years to obtain, that contract said: "hush".

If your next question is, "Who decides these things?" leading us to the necessity of a "supreme court", well the court has shamefully been reduced to a whore house, a stacked court that we cannot trust, and they don't grant God given Natural rights anyway, so I prefer to leave them in the corner wearing a "Dunce Cap" and relegating them to matters that are not as powerfully important as our inalienable rights. Yes I see this may get tricky but so be it, I still say they are NOT to be entrusted with our most cherished and important inalienable ("unalienable" as per Declaration of Independence, "inalienable" per Merriam Webster).

I've had enough of those whores, get enough liberals and you get a liberal decision, get enough conservatives and you get a conservative decision, like I said, a stacked court of pandering whores and RBG was THE most egregious example. Enough is enough already.

For now? What I do is damage control, that's what you see here with my words, we've heard rachel maddow attack, ruthlessly attack, no pun intended, our second amendment rights, then this sick cunt (pardon the expression, I'm from NYC and if I'm breaking rules let me know, or offending let me know, but I checked the rules and I saw no prohibition) turns around and tells us our inalienable rights are not subject to a vote. Well which is it you sick cunt? As you can see I have great contempt for power mad control freaks like maddow, or killary, or anyone for that matter.

So my use of her serves two purposes, it negates her attack on our "inalienable rights" because like she said, they are not subject to a vote, and demonstrates her hypocrisy, reducing her credibility among rational people. We're at war, spiritually, philosophically, and now, it seems, we are on the brink of a dirty war all over the USA, and I feel I've fallen down on the job of doing what little, and it seems too little, what little I can do, and what I do is speak to the hearts and minds of anyone who will listen, and in whom my words strike a chord.


Thanks for the clarification. Not here to argue what is or isn't an unalienable right, just wanted to know where you were coming from.


Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:59 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: King County
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012
Posts: 5319
Bloomberg's sugar baby groups, EveryClown and Moms that Need Action have both issued statements saying ACB is a "gun extremist" so there's that.

_________________
If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto).
If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/
Quote:
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.”

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738
Quote:
[Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"


Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:36 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Can't say
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 7676
Tod wrote:
leadcounsel wrote:
Tod wrote:
Fishinpnw wrote:
Just curious, which unalienable rights are you talking about?


I'm talking about the 2nd amendment unalienable rights, but I'm using the liberal's own weapon against them, rachel maddow. Unalienable rights are unalienable rights, 1st, 2nd, or other, and I like the rachel maddow video because here she is defending our very own stance, that our rights are non-negotiable. I've used this video to silence many a liberal who has said that our rights can be limited by politicians.


It's a serious question asking for a serious reply.

Regarding the 1A: Should there be any restrictions on it, such as military members speaking on matters of highly sensitive or secret information, like attack planning or missile launch codes? Or speech like threats or inciting violence?

Regarding the 2A: Should there be any restrictions, such as disarming a criminal suspect incident to detention, or disarming a prison population, or disarming the dangerous mentally insane who are fit to be in society and not locked up (like a split personality disorder, or paranoid delusional type...).


Valid points. Restrictions on 2nd amendment? In constitutional carry states, for example Vermont, or Arizona, residents can carry concealed, no permits, no applications for permits, no registration, no permission required by beseeching, begging to some exalted asshole.

The restriction comes if they are a felon, or have demonstrated that they are a danger to society whether it be by a murder, rape, or robbery they committed, or they had a collection of kidnapped women in their basement.

First amendment? Similar, we can speak our minds no restrictions of permits, registration, etc., but if we shout "fire" in a movie theater that causes injury or worse, now we end up in prison. As for the military, it's been decided already, and we each signed a contract, myself I had a top secret clearance I waited two years to obtain, that contract said: "hush".

If your next question is, "Who decides these things?" leading us to the necessity of a "supreme court", well the court has shamefully been reduced to a whore house, a stacked court that we cannot trust, and they don't grant God given Natural rights anyway, so I prefer to leave them in the corner wearing a "Dunce Cap" and relegating them to matters that are not as powerfully important as our inalienable rights. Yes I see this may get tricky but so be it, I still say they are NOT to be entrusted with our most cherished and important inalienable ("unalienable" as per Declaration of Independence, "inalienable" per Merriam Webster).

I've had enough of those whores, get enough liberals and you get a liberal decision, get enough conservatives and you get a conservative decision, like I said, a stacked court of pandering whores and RBG was THE most egregious example. Enough is enough already.

For now? What I do is damage control, that's what you see here with my words, we've heard rachel maddow attack, ruthlessly attack, no pun intended, our second amendment rights, then this sick cunt (pardon the expression, I'm from NYC and if I'm breaking rules let me know, or offending let me know, but I checked the rules and I saw no prohibition) turns around and tells us our inalienable rights are not subject to a vote. Well which is it you sick cunt? As you can see I have great contempt for power mad control freaks like maddow, or killary, or anyone for that matter.

So my use of her serves two purposes, it negates her attack on our "inalienable rights" because like she said, they are not subject to a vote, and demonstrates her hypocrisy, reducing her credibility among rational people. We're at war, spiritually, philosophically, and now, it seems, we are on the brink of a dirty war all over the USA, and I feel I've fallen down on the job of doing what little, and it seems too little, what little I can do, and what I do is speak to the hearts and minds of anyone who will listen, and in whom my words strike a chord.


Not here to argue because I suspect we generally agree, but merely to challenge your thinking to improve your argument.

You've just agreed that some reasonable restrictions ARE in fact necessary for the 1A and 2A. That cuts squarely against your "inalienable rights" position. Apparently the 2A then isn't without infringements... So then it becomes an issue of what is/are reasonable restrictions to these rights for a functional society.

You should reconcile this to improve your arguments.

PS - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is only problematic if there is in fact no fire and it creates a dangerous emergency in doing so. Otherwise there are defenses to doing so.

_________________
I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.


Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:42 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Index
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 11889
Real Name: Jeff
leadcounsel wrote:
Tod wrote:
leadcounsel wrote:
Tod wrote:
Fishinpnw wrote:
Just curious, which unalienable rights are you talking about?


I'm talking about the 2nd amendment unalienable rights, but I'm using the liberal's own weapon against them, rachel maddow. Unalienable rights are unalienable rights, 1st, 2nd, or other, and I like the rachel maddow video because here she is defending our very own stance, that our rights are non-negotiable. I've used this video to silence many a liberal who has said that our rights can be limited by politicians.


It's a serious question asking for a serious reply.

Regarding the 1A: Should there be any restrictions on it, such as military members speaking on matters of highly sensitive or secret information, like attack planning or missile launch codes? Or speech like threats or inciting violence?

Regarding the 2A: Should there be any restrictions, such as disarming a criminal suspect incident to detention, or disarming a prison population, or disarming the dangerous mentally insane who are fit to be in society and not locked up (like a split personality disorder, or paranoid delusional type...).


Valid points. Restrictions on 2nd amendment? In constitutional carry states, for example Vermont, or Arizona, residents can carry concealed, no permits, no applications for permits, no registration, no permission required by beseeching, begging to some exalted asshole.

The restriction comes if they are a felon, or have demonstrated that they are a danger to society whether it be by a murder, rape, or robbery they committed, or they had a collection of kidnapped women in their basement.

First amendment? Similar, we can speak our minds no restrictions of permits, registration, etc., but if we shout "fire" in a movie theater that causes injury or worse, now we end up in prison. As for the military, it's been decided already, and we each signed a contract, myself I had a top secret clearance I waited two years to obtain, that contract said: "hush".

If your next question is, "Who decides these things?" leading us to the necessity of a "supreme court", well the court has shamefully been reduced to a whore house, a stacked court that we cannot trust, and they don't grant God given Natural rights anyway, so I prefer to leave them in the corner wearing a "Dunce Cap" and relegating them to matters that are not as powerfully important as our inalienable rights. Yes I see this may get tricky but so be it, I still say they are NOT to be entrusted with our most cherished and important inalienable ("unalienable" as per Declaration of Independence, "inalienable" per Merriam Webster).

I've had enough of those whores, get enough liberals and you get a liberal decision, get enough conservatives and you get a conservative decision, like I said, a stacked court of pandering whores and RBG was THE most egregious example. Enough is enough already.

For now? What I do is damage control, that's what you see here with my words, we've heard rachel maddow attack, ruthlessly attack, no pun intended, our second amendment rights, then this sick cunt (pardon the expression, I'm from NYC and if I'm breaking rules let me know, or offending let me know, but I checked the rules and I saw no prohibition) turns around and tells us our inalienable rights are not subject to a vote. Well which is it you sick cunt? As you can see I have great contempt for power mad control freaks like maddow, or killary, or anyone for that matter.

So my use of her serves two purposes, it negates her attack on our "inalienable rights" because like she said, they are not subject to a vote, and demonstrates her hypocrisy, reducing her credibility among rational people. We're at war, spiritually, philosophically, and now, it seems, we are on the brink of a dirty war all over the USA, and I feel I've fallen down on the job of doing what little, and it seems too little, what little I can do, and what I do is speak to the hearts and minds of anyone who will listen, and in whom my words strike a chord.


Not here to argue because I suspect we generally agree, but merely to challenge your thinking to improve your argument.

You've just agreed that some reasonable restrictions ARE in fact necessary for the 1A and 2A. That cuts squarely against your "inalienable rights" position. Apparently the 2A then isn't without infringements... So then it becomes an issue of what is/are reasonable restrictions to these rights for a functional society.

You should reconcile this to improve your arguments.

PS - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is only problematic if there is in fact no fire and it creates a dangerous emergency in doing so. Otherwise there are defenses to doing so.

Freedom without responsibility is just chaos.

_________________
-Jeff

How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today?

The problem with being on social media, is that you know too many people that you don't know.

Joy is not a feeling. It is a strength. Some people are stupid, that's all there is to it. (And sometimes that stupid person is me/you.) Sometimes you just have to let stupid people be stupid. Don't let stupid steal your joy.

Holding onto unforgiveness and resentment is like drinking poison and expecting that other person to die. Anger will eat you up.

Freedom without responsibility is chaos.


Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:46 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Location: Seattle
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018
Posts: 146
[/quote]Not here to argue because I suspect we generally agree, but merely to challenge your thinking to improve your argument.

You've just agreed that some reasonable restrictions ARE in fact necessary for the 1A and 2A. That cuts squarely against your "inalienable rights" position. Apparently the 2A then isn't without infringements... So then it becomes an issue of what is/are reasonable restrictions to these rights for a functional society.

You should reconcile this to improve your arguments.

PS - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is only problematic if there is in fact no fire and it creates a dangerous emergency in doing so. Otherwise there are defenses to doing so.[/quote]

Yes, I consider debate as the file I used to sharpen the blade rather than a matter of you and I arguing, we're not. Ultimately, though, it is a moot point, as we can see we're at a point where liberal democrats don't care about words, nor the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, they want what they want and they will do what it takes to get it no matter what it takes or how much violence it takes.

That's where the words of the Constitution become immaterial and now it falls to the teeth with which the Constitution was endowed. That would be us, us saying to the liberals and their plan of disarming America: "IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN"

Back to the matter of restrictions, I don't agree on the need for restrictions as much as I agree that our rights are unalienable until some dude goes off reservation and, for example, keeps and murders women in his basement like gary heidnik, or rapes and murders boys, like john wayne gacey, etc. etc.. At that point a person's humanity has left them and we alienate them from their right to own weapons.

Until such a time as when a person has left their humanity behind, we do like the Constitutional carry of many states, a person carries, no permission, no permits, they carry, until such a time as they've demonstrated their unworthiness.

Speaking of unworthiness, the court has demonstrated their unworthiness, RBG shouted it from the roof tops in her final year, we can no longer continue with the belief that the court will sort this out, there is nothing to sort out anymore, if anything it's time to do a lot of "unsorting" in regards to our unalienable rights.

I know it's a harsh disrespectful thing to say about our highest court in the nation, but it's not without justification that I say it, the court is now a political circus, it's a stacked court of whores that pander to their political biases, and as such, they are now worthless in my eyes, and at the very least, entirely untrustworthy.

I do not believe it is wise to endanger our most cherished liberties by leaving them in the hands of a stacked court of whores. The law of the land was stated in no uncertain terms over 200 years ago, and our cherished liberties are not subject to a vote, not by politician, not by political whores in robes such as the likes of RBG when she was breathing, not by anyone.

The way rachel maddow and her mad merry band of liberals believe that their right to abortion, their right to gay marriage are sacrosanct, unassailable, they need to understand that so too are the unalienable rights of the 2nd amendment and all other rights, even if they refuse to understand, they will know that we cherish our rights with the same ferocity with which they cherish their "right" to kill unborn babies.


Last edited by Tod on Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:38 pm, edited 4 times in total.



Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:00 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: King County
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012
Posts: 5319
Apparently she had another gun case she ruled on, hat tip to Dave Workman:

Quote:
“In United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018), Judge Barrett held that mere possession of a gun does not give police the right to stop and investigate someone for potential wrongdoing. Police blocked and searched a man’s car based on an anonymous tip that a group of individuals possessed guns in a parking lot. But, she explained, under the Fourth Amendment, an officer cannot stop someone to investigate potential wrongdoing without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Exercising one’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm is not a crime. Thus, she explained, “citizens should be able to exercise the constitutional right to carry a gun without having the police stop them when they do so.”

_________________
If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto).
If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/
Quote:
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.”

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738
Quote:
[Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"


Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:08 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Duvall
Joined: Sun Jan 6, 2013
Posts: 21370
Real Name: Paco X
Alpine wrote:
Apparently she had another gun case she ruled on, hat tip to Dave Workman:

Quote:
“In United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018), Judge Barrett held that mere possession of a gun does not give police the right to stop and investigate someone for potential wrongdoing. Police blocked and searched a man’s car based on an anonymous tip that a group of individuals possessed guns in a parking lot. But, she explained, under the Fourth Amendment, an officer cannot stop someone to investigate potential wrongdoing without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Exercising one’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm is not a crime. Thus, she explained, “citizens should be able to exercise the constitutional right to carry a gun without having the police stop them when they do so.”


Damn. That is going to blow some liberal minds!!

_________________
Wear a lousy mask and no one says a thing.

Wear a neck gaiter and everyone suddenly is a filtration efficacy and efficiency expert.


Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:56 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Can't say
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 7676
Alpine wrote:
Apparently she had another gun case she ruled on, hat tip to Dave Workman:

Quote:
“In United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018), Judge Barrett held that mere possession of a gun does not give police the right to stop and investigate someone for potential wrongdoing. Police blocked and searched a man’s car based on an anonymous tip that a group of individuals possessed guns in a parking lot. But, she explained, under the Fourth Amendment, an officer cannot stop someone to investigate potential wrongdoing without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Exercising one’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm is not a crime. Thus, she explained, “citizens should be able to exercise the constitutional right to carry a gun without having the police stop them when they do so.”


Wow, that is an INCREDIBLE ruling and I absolutely love it. It demonstrates my exact belief on the 4th AND 2nd... incredible... One of my biggest complaints of the Conservatives on the Court is weakness on the 4A (they have eroded the 4A due to the war on drugs and further expanded warrantless searches exponentially), and it cuts against Terry v. Ohio (Terry Stops) too. Kudos to Barrett here!

_________________
I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.


Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:36 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: foggood11, Tod and 39 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rent Me Pintos NRA SAF CCKRBA
Aldersons e-arms.com


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 1.055s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]