Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:38 am


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  [ 6 posts ] 
 First Circuit Court Rules Against the Right to Keep and Bear 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Index
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 8673
Real Name: Jeff


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNXqQVxgPSk

_________________
-Jeff

Image

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. (And yes, you can quote me on that. LOL)

Intellectualism is intelligence that has been left in the back of the fridge for 5 months. ~Bill Whittle

Sometimes I have an answer for everything. Other times I can't even remember what my shoelaces taste like.


Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:02 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Duvall
Joined: Sun Jan 6, 2013
Posts: 16243
Real Name: Paco X
How about a NEW SC ruling..............in my dreams, I suppose

_________________
I'll shoot, you keep handing me full magazines.


Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:07 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Index
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 8673
Real Name: Jeff
Pablo wrote:
How about a NEW SC ruling..............in my dreams, I suppose

That's what I've been thinking.

I wonder what SC the ruling would be right now?

_________________
-Jeff

Image

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. (And yes, you can quote me on that. LOL)

Intellectualism is intelligence that has been left in the back of the fridge for 5 months. ~Bill Whittle

Sometimes I have an answer for everything. Other times I can't even remember what my shoelaces taste like.


Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:31 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma, WA
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 5435
Scalia is correct in that rights can be attenuated. What should be noted expressly or implicitly is that the attenuation should be for extremely good cause. We can agree that someone who is arrested can be disarmed, or that a prisoner shouldn't have a gun, so he's surrendered his rights. Witnesses or members in a court room shouldn't be armed since tempers are subject to emotional flare-ups and violence is predictable. And so forth. Basically case-by-case situations and temporary disarmament under specific circumstances.

The terminology "shall not infringe" should be taken quite literally, with really just extreme exceptions for extreme circumstances, so obvious as to not need explanation.

What these modern activist courts are doing is wrongly using that attenuation language to ban entire groups of millions of law abiding citizens their general rights to general common arms under day-to-day circumstances. And that is flatly wrong and an illegal infringement.

_________________
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.


Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:54 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Duvall
Joined: Sun Jan 6, 2013
Posts: 16243
Real Name: Paco X
leadcounsel wrote:
Scalia is correct in that rights can be attenuated. What should be noted expressly or implicitly is that the attenuation should be for extremely good cause. We can agree that someone who is arrested can be disarmed, or that a prisoner shouldn't have a gun, so he's surrendered his rights. Witnesses or members in a court room shouldn't be armed since tempers are subject to emotional flare-ups and violence is predictable. And so forth. Basically case-by-case situations and temporary disarmament under specific circumstances.

The terminology "shall not infringe" should be taken quite literally, with really just extreme exceptions for extreme circumstances, so obvious as to not need explanation.

What these modern activist courts are doing is wrongly using that attenuation language to ban entire groups of millions of law abiding citizens their general rights to general common arms under day-to-day circumstances. And that is flatly wrong and an illegal infringement.


Great point.

_________________
I'll shoot, you keep handing me full magazines.


Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:00 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma, WA
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 5435
There's a handful of cases and situations which are ripe for appeal to the SCOTUS that hopefully are combined into a overall AWB type case, with "safe storage - already struck down in DC" and other stupid laws all piled into a SCOTUS case.

I'd prefer waiting about a year or until 1 more Constitutional judge is on the Court. Then stomp all that garbage down on a national level.

_________________
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.


Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:02 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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 : 0.669s | 14 Queries | GZIP : On ]