[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta et al v County of San Diego et al, 10-56971 (9th Cir, 9 Jul 2016)
OPINION Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the Federal District of Columbia in 2008, but left the status of incorporation against the States undeclared. Opinion of the Court by Scalia. McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States in 2010. Opinion of the Court by Alito. While the right to keep and bear arms in protected by the 2nd Amendment, the amendment does not state, claim, or imply that it either created or defined the right to keep and bear arms. The Framers felt no need to define what were, to them, the well known terms of English common law which had prevailed in the colonies and which were carried forth in the States after the revolution. The 2nd Amendment makes no allusion of the right to carry concealed weapons. I know of no law specifically for or against concealed carry from that era. The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana. At the time, the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the States. Concealed carry may just not have been an issue back before the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Heller and McDonald make clear that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in the English common law and that "the right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'" Under Heller and McDonald it appears that there is nothing prohibiting a State from regulating or prohibiting the concealed carry of handguns. Prohibiting the carrying of handguns was held unconstitutional, but allowing open carry satisfies that. Of course, if Hillary appoints three or four justices to the Supreme Court, it may find that "common sense" regulations disarming United States civilians are lawfully justified by some emanation from some penumbra. McDonald at 20-21:
Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted inthis Nation’s history and tradition.” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted). Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self defense, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 19–20), and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 20). McDonald at 39-40:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 40:
Municipal respondents suggest that the Second Amendment right differs from the rights heretofore incorporated because the latter were “valued for[their] own sake.” Id., at 33. But we have never previously suggested that incorporation of a right turns on whether it has intrinsic as opposed to instrumental value, and quite a few of the rights previously held to be incorporated—for example the right to counsel and the right to confront and subpoena witnesses—are clearly instrumental by any measure. Moreover, this contention repackages one of the chief arguments that we rejected in Heller, i.e., that the scope of the Second Amendment right is defined by the immediate threat that led to the inclusion of that right in the Bill of Rights. In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid.
#3. To: misterwhite (#1) Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. And to overturn existing state laws at will. Just like the morons wanted.
#4. To: nolu chan (#2) "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning).
#5. To: Roscoe (#3) "And to overturn existing state laws at will. Just like the morons wanted." Yep. And if the issue some day makes it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the composition of the court is liberal, they will rule that concealed carry is not protected -- and THAT ruling will apply to all 50 states.
#6. To: misterwhite (#4) And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning).
The Kentucky constitution of 1799 provided "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." The Kentucky law of 1813 stated, "that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars...." The Kentucky Court of Appeals struck the law down as repugnant to the Kentucky Constitution. The Federal Constitution was not at issue.
Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 12 Littell 90 (Ky. 1822)
#7. To: misterwhite (#4) Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions.
A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.
#8. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, roscoe, Y'ALL --- Three Amigos against our gun rights... (#7) nolu chan (#2) --- "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights.
#9. To: nolu chan (#7) The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States.
#10. To: tpaine (#9)
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Hey shithead, link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015)
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
#11. To: tpaine, misterwhite, roscoe (#8)
And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Of course, Nunn found it constitutional to ban concealed carry. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015)
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
#12. To: nolu chan (#11) (Edited) AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States.
Hey shithead, There you go again with the juvenile name calling. -- Whatta clown..
-- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself.
And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule They aren't 'overruling' anything. Just issuing their opinion.
--- Ithe precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd?
I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Bullshit. You've been outed for the phony that you are.
#13. To: nolu chan (#11) "Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about.
#14. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#13) Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms.
#15. To: tpaine (#12)
AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Obviously, you are proven a idiot once again. Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846) overrode SCOTUS Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, (1833) the way a Georgia court opinion saying abortion is not a constitutionally protected right would today overrule Roe v. Wade. Notably, you can not cite any post where I ever said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." This is because you just make up crap and defecate on the internet. Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG) (D.P.R. Mar 08, 2016)
B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation
#16. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#14)
John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. More blithering legal idiocy.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Actually, Chief Justice Marshall wrote majority opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury was a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and Chief Justice Marshall was the proper authority to write for the majority of the Court. What he wrote was the Opinion of the Court. While the judicial department is empowered to say what the law is, tpaine is not. Notably absent is a tpaine provision of any opinion of any justice in the U.S. Supreme Court that has ever agreed with his nonsense that the original Bill of Rights applied to the States, other than through incorporation via the 14th Amendment. tpaine pronouncements contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings are legally meaningless bleatings of a fool.
#17. To: tpaine (#12) You've been outed for the phony that you are. Go tilt some more windmills at Justice Scalia. Talk about a phony. Idiot tpaine thinking he is responding to nolu chan:
[SCALIA] The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads:
#18. To: tpaine (#8) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? It's looking real swell. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #19. To: misterwhite (#13)
Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. In Congressional debate in 1789, even the congressmen said the then-proposed amendments applied only to the Federal government. One hopes that at least a couple of them knew what they were talking about. The Congressional Register, First Congress, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2 (1790), In context, in all cases when reference was made to "the government," the Federal congressmen referred to the Federal government, and not to the several State governments, as is clear when one considers Mr. Hartley's statement "that all the rights and powers that were not given to the government, were retained by the states and the people thereof...." In its final version, this appeared as Amendment Nine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." August 15, 1789 Page 194:
The house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the amendments to the constitution. Page 197:
The next clause of the 4th proposition was taken into consideration, and was as follows: "The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances shall not be infringed." Page 197:
Mr. BENSON. Page 198:
Mr. HARTLEY Page 203:
Mr. GERRY
= = = = = = = = = = John Marshall in the Convention debating the BOR Amendments. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] The Convention, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a committee of the whole Convention, to take into further consideration the proposed plan of government. Mr. WYTHE in the chair. [The 8th section still under consideration. See page 378.] [1. Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] [excerpt]
Mr. JOHN MARSHALL = = = = = = = = = = James Madison letter to Thomas Jefferson of October 17, 1788, excerpt.
It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light—1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.
#20. To: nolu chan (#17) The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States.
Hey shithead,
There you go again with the juvenile name calling. -- Whatta clown..
-- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule They aren't 'overruling' anything. Just issuing their opinion.
--- Ithe precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void.
So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? Answer the question, IF you can..
#21. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, y'all (#18) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to fringe on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin?
#22. To: tpaine, GrandIsland, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan (#21) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? First of all, I don’t know that misterwhie, roscoe and nolu chan “support that state power” has the power to fringe (Sic) on our gun rights. I only know that you just said they support it. And your say-so not supported by any proof will not work for me since I have found your assumptive statements to support your preformed conclusions to be consistently untrustworthy as a source of factual information. However, that being the case, I will attempt to answer your question when you asked how “that” is working out for me. As I attempt to answer your question, I would need first to try understand why these noble, highly intelligent and dedicatedly patriotic gentlemen whom I hold in such high esteem would ever want, assuming they did, “an ornamental border consisting of short straight or twisted threads or strips hanging from cut or raveled edges or from a separate band” (Merriam-Webster definition of fringe) “on our gun rights” before I determine if state power could control anything to do with said “fringe.” Since I have not been privy to prior interchange discussions, I can however emphatically state without any question whatsoever that I hate the combination of bright yellow and dark purple on the “fringe” you have referenced. This opinion of being the ugliest color combination ever is shared by a member of DeviantArt which is the world's largest online social community for artists and art enthusiasts, allowing people to connect through the creation and sharing of art. My delirium in this situation that bothers you so much and one you have so boldly taken liberty to thrust me into is best compared to the somber side-effect of a nation placed under sedation which was induced by a heroin-like injected haze of obfuscation and I always have a trepid tentativeness conflicting with a strong desire to stay free of any association with all stupid irrationality you Paultards present. That said and speaking for myself, never for GrandIsland, the Commerce Clause making the regulation of gun sales a state power is working out fine with me. Our Constitution lays out a specific power structure of the federal government and its relationship to the powers of states. While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce. I trust this answer has satisfied your curiosity and I will forever remain at a total loss to understand why you pinged me to pose such an “out of the blue” question.
#23. To: Gatlin (#22) "While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce." Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, individual gun rights were protected by state constitutions. Which is why gun laws were different in each state. California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want -- short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess.
#24. To: nolu chan (#19) "In Congressional debate in 1789, even the congressmen said the then-proposed amendments applied only to the Federal government." Hell, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights spells it out: "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." The states were concerned about delegating power to the newly-formed federal government and added the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) to "prevent misconstruction or abuse" of those powers. Each state was fiercely independent. They wouldn't write one Bill of Rights to limit their own powers.
#25. To: Gatlin, confesses to Statism, y'all (#22) I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to infringe on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin?
First of all, I don’t know that misterwhie, roscoe and nolu chan “support that state power” has the power to infringe on our gun rights. I only know that you just said they support it. Read much? -- On this thread alone they've ALL outed themselves as statist gun grabbers, -- and they've been doing that for years, on this forum and others.
That said and speaking for myself, never for GrandIsland, the Commerce Clause making the regulation of gun sales a state power is working out fine with me. Our Constitution lays out a specific power structure of the federal government and its relationship to the powers of states. While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce… And there we have it, your own confession that you support the supposed power of States to regulate/infringe upon our gun rights. --- Thank you.
#26. To: tpaine (#25) The 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot, flintlock, smooth-bore muzzleloaders, tpaine...
#27. To: misterwhite, gatlin, both support Statists, again... (#23) Gatlin (#22) --- And "While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce."
misterwhite --- Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, individual gun rights were protected by state constitutions. Which is why gun laws were different in each state. No, gun rights have always been protected by the Constitution, altho various yahoos in different states and localities have been allowed by leftist courts to infringe upon that right.
California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want - - short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. --- Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. But 'they', supported by you numbnut gun grabbers, will not prevail.
#28. To: Willie Green (#26) Come try and take mine, libtard. I'll give you 50,000 (don't tell Buckyboy, he's too stupid to understand) reasons (230 grains at a time) why you interpret the 2nd amendment wrong. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #29. To: tpaine (#27) California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. Keep telling yourself that, while you fund the cost of the chains you wear... The top 5 states with the highest cost of chains. Kookifornia I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #30. To: Willie Green joins the canary klan (#26) The 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot, flintlock, smooth-bore muzzleloaders, tpaine... anything invented afterward can be regulated anyway the government wants. Thanks for adding yourself to this roll call of numbnut gun grabbers, Willy.
#31. To: GrandIsland (#29) California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully.
Keep telling yourself that, while you fund the cost of the chains you wear... If you're to be believed, (doubtful) you work with the Statists. Congrats. Although I'd bet you're on welfare, posting from your mother's basement.
#32. To: tpaine (#31) lol... I have two incomes. A pension and a full time paycheck... earning ANOTHER pension. My mother lives in a one bedroom townhouse like apartment that costs more a month than your home, taxes and car payment... and it doesn't have a basement or attic. Douchebag. I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer for, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #33. To: GrandIsland (#32) If you're to be believed, (doubtful) you work with the Statists. Congrats. Although I'd bet you're on welfare, posting from your mother's basement.
I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer fvor, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. Your fascist dreams are noted, --- Thanks.
#34. To: tpaine (#33) It's not fascism to remove the rights and punish convicted felons. It's called punishment, after a guilty verdict by a jury of their peers, asshole. Only a liberal Paultard would equate that with government servitude. Suck it up, bleeding heart. Criminals WILL BE PUNISHED. Cry somewhere else. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #35. To: GrandIsland (#34) I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer for, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. Fascistic dreams...
It's not fascism to remove the rights and punish convicted felons. It's called punishment, after a guilty verdict by a jury of their peers, And you hope they're put in a hole for 23 hrs a day? -- Fascist dreaming.
#36. To: All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green (#35) Bump to a thread that outs you ALL.
#37. To: misterwhite (#23) Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. That make sense and it comes as no surprise. He does have a weird aspect on causes and effects.
#38. To: Gatlin (#37) misterwhite--- California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want - - short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. --- Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess.
California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. But 'they', supported by you numbnut gun grabbers, will not prevail. --- And they cannot "do whatever they want".
gatlin --- He does have a weird aspect on causes and effects.
Cause --- Apparently, no one in Orlando was able to defend themselves. Effect -- A lone gunman was able to slaughter 50 of them.
#39. To: All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green (#36) All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green
#40. To: tpaine (#20)
So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? Yes. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell, and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Do you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful? Answer the question, IF you can.
#41. To: nolu chan (#40) So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd?. Bear in mind that according to you, earlier, you said they couldn't. Answer the question, IF you can..
Yes. --- Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell, and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. So now you say they can, and then you said they couldn't. Is it any wonder you're rapidly becoming known as a phony legal beagle?
. . . Comments (42 - 127) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|