|
Register •
FAQ •
My feedback
• Login
|
|
 |
 |
It is currently Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:38 am
|
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.
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
First Circuit Court Rules Against the Right to Keep and Bear
Author |
Message |
Selador
Site Supporter
Location: Index Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 Posts: 8673
Real Name: Jeff
|
_________________-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. (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 |
|
 |
Pablo
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 |
|
 |
Selador
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 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 |
|
 |
leadcounsel
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 |
|
 |
Pablo
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 |
|
 |
leadcounsel
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 |
|
 |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 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
|
|