Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:12 pm


Vote NO 1639
NO on 1639 Fundraiser - $16,631
 
$0 YOU RAISED $16,631!!!
Vote NO 1639
Rules Brads Guns Rainier Arms I5 Guns & Ammo Killer Innovations Fessleman Firearms
WGO Chat Room Rehv Arms Vantage Reloading
Gear Fortis WCA 2A Ind. Pintos WAC
Calendar



Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
 Miller + Heller could spell doom 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Camano Island, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3223
Real Name: Jason
https://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/hold-your-horses-critical-thinking-is-hard/

Quote:
In Heller v DC, the Court’s decision refers to Miller, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said…”

In other words, my very non-attorney comprehension of this concludes that, the Court sees this issue as something akin to, “Sure, bring us a case that involves semi-auto only rifles, like AR15s and AK47s, and watch how fast we uphold every ban on them brought to us, setting precedent for further bans…”


Quote:
The point of all this, of course, is not that I personally feel the Court was correct, in either Miller or Heller. Ultimately, the point is, I don’t give a shit what the Court says. I have to live my own life, in accordance with my own family and tribal cultural values, and when those values contradict the law, as handed down from on high, by the Court, I have to decide which is more important to me.

So do you.



I truly believe the thing which scares many in our governments the most is the thought that enough citizens will realize not just how much we dont actually need their involvement in everything; but also how much better off we would all be without it.

_________________
Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
MadPick wrote:
Bob Ferguson is a total piece of shit. Of this, I am convinced.

cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.

WARNING: I DEBATE IGNORAMUSES FOR MY OWN ENTERTAINMENT


Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:02 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 5082
Real Name: Curtis
Quote:
In Heller v DC, the Court’s decision refers to Miller, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said…

That's funny, I don't see the Court saying that "it is particularly wrongheaded to read the Second Amendment for more than what it said."

I think every judge at every level of every court who has opined that restrictions on certain types of weapons is not inconsistent with the 2A knows that position is not in keeping with either the language or the spirit of the 2A, but they take it anyway because, at the end of the day, they don't trust their fellow citizens with Liberty.


Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:04 am
Profile
Online
Site Moderator
User avatar
Site Moderator

Location: Vancouver, WA
Joined: Wed Mar 6, 2013
Posts: 10144
Guns4Liberty wrote:
Quote:
In Heller v DC, the Court’s decision refers to Miller, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said…

That's funny, I don't see the Court saying that "it is particularly wrongheaded to read the Second Amendment for more than what it said."

I think every judge at every level of every court who has opined that restrictions on certain types of weapons is not inconsistent with the 2A knows that position is not in keeping with either the language or the spirit of the 2A, but they take it anyway because, at the end of the day, they don't trust their fellow citizens with Liberty.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
I misread your comment G4L.

Good point.

_________________
"The greatest challenge that I faced was peeling back the layers of my own bias"


Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:19 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Spanaway, WA
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 4813
It is totally incompetent or purposefully inconsistent and ignoring the express language in the 2A to place restrictions on firearms.

The terms couldn't be more clear when written in black and white, "...shall not be infringed."

It really isn't difficult to understand, but has only gotten muddy due to the purposeful twisting of language by anti-gun lawyers and judges who plainly do not even understand how guns work. I've read many court opinions on gun laws and they are simply absurd in their incorrect understandings.

All these waiting periods, mag bans, and design bans are simply infringements. We can go down the path of "reasonable infringements..." Okay, fine. We have for 80 years allowed more and more infringements.

It turns out that the VERY thing that makes guns effective and dangerous are the VERY thing that makes them useful for a militia and expressly protected. The forefathers CLEARLY wanted our individual rights to own effective guns in order to form a militia. Any laws restricting that are expressly illegal.

Only the most dishonest or anti-gun zealot can see it otherwise.

_________________
I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF x4. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.


Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:50 am
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma-ish
Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 707
leadcounsel wrote:

It turns out that the VERY thing that makes guns effective and dangerous are the VERY thing that makes them useful for a militia and expressly protected. The forefathers CLEARLY wanted our individual rights to own effective guns in order to form a militia. Any laws restricting that are expressly illegal.

Only the most dishonest or anti-gun zealot can see it otherwise.



It's fun that articulate it as such. In many of my conversations with anti 2A people, I boil down their arguments to being against efficiency. Then, they have to wrangle the idea that the more efficient something is at it's job, the better it is. That really goes against their grain.


Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:23 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Selador, TacticalTuna and 7 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 : 1.007s | 19 Queries | GZIP : On ]