25 replies to this topic

[Sigma]

Last week the gun lobby lost big, and supporters of common sense gun laws won big. With help from Brady's Legal Action Project (LAP), courts ruled against gun lobby challenges to gun laws in three important cases:

In Washington, D.C. a federal judge dismissed a gun lobby challenge to an Obama Administration rule requiring that gun dealers in the Southwest border states notify law enforcement of bulk sales of semi-automatic rifles, a key indicator of gun trafficking. The court agreed with an amicus brief filed by LAP contending that ATF had authority to enforce the rule.

A federal judge upheld Los Angeles County’s strong concealed carry restrictions, agreeing with an amicus brief filed by LAP. This victory follows victories at the district court level in similar cases in Yolo County and San Diego County, in which LAP also filed amicus briefs.

A federal judge upheld New Jersey’s strong laws limiting the public carry of handguns, throwing out the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge. Echoing LAP’s amicus brief, the judge stated that "the Second Amendment does not include a general right to carry handguns outside the home."
But the gun lobby wants to strike down these laws and will do everything in its power to fight back. We need your help to stop them.

The gun lobby has already stated that it will appeal these defeats and our LAP lawyers are preparing to fight again.

You know that we cannot match the gun lobby’s vast financial resources — but with your help we can continue to beat them in the courts.

[Xwing]

Oh, what a shock.  All the "victories" are in left-wing gun-grabbing locations...

Edited by Xwing, 21 January 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[NakPPI]

Xwing, on 21 January 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Oh, what a shock.  All the "victories" are in left-wing gun-grabbing locations...

And at the district level where even Alan Gura expects to lose most of the time.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[TTIN]

OMG,I need to jump on their bandwagon,as they clearly are the winning team!!!!

[/sarcasm]

[SFC Stu]

TTIN, on 21 January 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

OMG,I need to jump on their bandwagon,as they clearly are the winning team!!!!

[/sarcasm]

I wonder which LAP doggie wants to come and *try* to disarm me/us?

[oneshot]

Do you think those announcements could be code for: "It's okay, you can send more money!"

[Xwing]

NakPPI, on 21 January 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

Xwing, on 21 January 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Oh, what a shock.  All the "victories" are in left-wing gun-grabbing locations...

And at the district level where even Alan Gura expects to lose most of the time.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Yep. Since the districts where our rights are most in absence are generally districts that have judges who ignore the constitution. Basic 2a rights usually aren't settled until at the highest level.

[belercous]

It sounds like these decisions were made in favor of the 10A (state's rights). Perhaps we should decide if we want federal or state law to triumph. Can't have it both ways. It was my understanding that conservatives dislike infringements upon state's rights, perhaps I've been mistaken, I was only going off of history.

[Hossua]

belercous, on 23 January 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

It sounds like these decisions were made in favor of the 10A (state's rights). Perhaps we should decide if we want federal or state law to triumph. Can't have it both ways. It was my understanding that conservatives dislike infringements upon state's rights, perhaps I've been mistaken, I was only going off of history.

I think we need to come to a decision as to whether the bill of rights applies to the states or not. I think short of repealing the 14th amendment State's rights as it applies to the bill of rights are over.

[abolt243]

Hossua, on 24 January 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

belercous, on 23 January 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

It sounds like these decisions were made in favor of the 10A (state's rights). Perhaps we should decide if we want federal or state law to triumph. Can't have it both ways. It was my understanding that conservatives dislike infringements upon state's rights, perhaps I've been mistaken, I was only going off of history.

I think we need to come to a decision as to whether the bill of rights applies to the states or not. I think short of repealing the 14th amendment State's rights as it applies to the bill of rights are over.

Pay attention to the article.  In all three cases, the opinions were rendered by a Federal Judge.  How do you get to be a Federal Judge?  You are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.   We often talk about the President's power to appoint to the SCOTUS, but filling the lower courts with liberal judges is just as damaging, if not more so.  Votes have consequences!!

Also, remember your local elections for State circuit judges.  How they rule can have an impact on how any laws regarding firearms are applied in that circuit and how real criminals are treated/sentenced/paroled/released back into society to continue their wicked ways.

Elections are about more than just Governor, President, Senator, Representative.  Many times, the most local of races can have a much greater impact on our day to day lives and can affect State and Federal level issues greatly!!

Be an informed voter!!  Learn about the candidates!  Vote in EVERY election!

This concludes your civic duty announcement for the day!
Tim

[Xwing]

belercous, on 23 January 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

It sounds like these decisions were made in favor of the 10A (state's rights). Perhaps we should decide if we want federal or state law to triumph. Can't have it both ways. It was my understanding that conservatives dislike infringements upon state's rights, perhaps I've been mistaken, I was only going off of history.

You are being disingenuous, and you know it. Conservatives generally dislike infringements on state's rights. But the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to all state governments. In cases where state governments infringe on citizens' rights that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, conservatives generally want the federal government to step in. This is the same as the Jim Crow Laws in the South after the Civil War. Southern states were terribly infringing on the rights of blacks, in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights. The federal government had to come in and fix it. But that is a specific scenario; the federal government sticking their hands into every aspect of everyone's lives and making far reaching decisions using powers they were never granted in the Constitution is something else entirely.

[stm]

I know I'm going to set off a $#!% storm here, but I always thought that people had rights, not states. States have only that authority granted them by the people. People have rights.

[Xwing]

stm, on 24 January 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

I know I'm going to set off a $#!% storm here, but I always thought that people had rights, not states. States have only that authority granted them by the people. People have rights.

I agree.  "States Rights" basically means "Things the federal government has no authority to regulate".  Fighting for "states rights" is simply fighting to get the federal government to stay within the authority granted to it by the Constitution.

States have "Powers" or "Authority".  People have "Rights"

10th Amendment:
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.

Edited by Xwing, 24 January 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[Mac]

stm, on 24 January 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

I know I'm going to set off a $#!% storm here, but I always thought that people had rights, not states. States have only that authority granted them by the people. People have rights.

People have rights that are given by the Constitution of the United States. These rights have been fought over for many many years. It is important to be able to fight for the things that we believe in. You fight with the vote when it is called for, the phone call when it is needed, and arms as a last resort. As long as the people exercise their rights, they will not be forgotten. If you want to lose your rights, just simply ignore them, they will go away. Our rights to life in general can not be over-ruled by any one person. I have a right to protect myself by any means in order to sustain life. There is no one on this earth that can tell me I have to let someone kill me in order that the law be obeyed. This is nuts. If and I say IF they think that I will lay down and roll over, they have one more think coming.

[belercous]

Hossua: the B.O.R. has not been fully incorporated under the 14A as of now. It would be kind of difficult to do so as the 9A & 10A can't fit under such framework. And not all of the other remaining rights of the B.O.R. have been "incorporated" either. Overall, I agree with your sentiment.

XWing; Is "disingenuous" your new word? Eh, I'll bite. So the fed. gov. can only step-in when state's abuse their rights? You gave racial discrimination as an example, & rightfully so. Until the Heller & McDonald decisions gun rights were also a "state's rights" issue. So, "state's rights" should prevail unless one doesn't like the decision of the states? Pick & choose. Does the word "consistency" mean anything to you? Please choose a side & stay with it. Please also give your "opinion" as to what the 10A means to you.

We already know what the 10A means in practice which is basically "no unfunded federal mandates," but feel free to chime in with your opinion. Please also state your credentials so we know how much to weight your opinions, I'm sure that you've spent years studying the Const., so please tell us why your opinion ought to prevail over the commonly understood conventional wisdom. Go.

[milq]

Edit: my post was not in keeping with the spirit of a united stance in support of RTC.

Edited by milq, 26 January 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[Xwing]

belercous, on 26 January 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

XWing; Is "disingenuous" your new word? Eh, I'll bite. So the fed. gov. can only step-in when state's abuse their rights? You gave racial discrimination as an example, & rightfully so. Until the Heller & McDonald decisions gun rights were also a "state's rights" issue. So, "state's rights" should prevail unless one doesn't like the decision of the states? Pick & choose. Does the word "consistency" mean anything to you? Please choose a side & stay with it. Please also give your "opinion" as to what the 10A means to you.

We already know what the 10A means in practice which is basically "no unfunded federal mandates," but feel free to chime in with your opinion. Please also state your credentials so we know how much to weight your opinions, I'm sure that you've spent years studying the Const., so please tell us why your opinion ought to prevail over the commonly understood conventional wisdom. Go.

“Disingenuous” accurately describes your stance as laid out in your previous post.  Using a word once does not make it “my new word”; you are trying to distract from the issue at hand.  I ignore, as does everyone here, your continued attempts at character assassination.  It is a cowardly endeavor to divert attention from discussing the actual topic.

The states are infringing on the rights specifically granted to the people in the Bill of Rights.  In that particular situation, it is the Federal Government’s duty to reverse such direct infraction.  Except in a very limited framework, as spelled out in the Constitution, it is not the Federal government’s job to impose new restrictions on either the states or the people.  But here we are not talking about imposing new restrictions.  In the above cases, we are talking about overruling existing state-level restrictions that are unconstitutional.  On constitutional matters, it is the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

[stm]

Well said, X-Wing!

[belercous]

X-Wing; I see you're a Constituional scholar. Where exactly do you get your information from? It doesn't seem to match up with my studies. Perhaps I missed something, please enlighten me on your beliefs as to when the Federal gov. ought to step in on states & when it shouldn't. You must have some consistent logic, but I suppose I'm too dim to see it.

Have you ever studied the 2A, or have you just taken other's word on it? I've actually studied the subject, doing my own research & all that. I started out believing it was a right granted to everyone. Then I went to university. Seems the B.O.R. didn't originally apply to the states, it was only a restriction on the federal gov.

Well, not being one to let facts trump my belief, I researched the subject a bit more using LexisNexis & WestLaw in grad school. Lo & behold, doing research I discovered that what I was taught in my university's pre-law courses was true. The 2A originaly only applied to the Fed. Gov., not the states. This held true until the McDonald decision came down. Every prof. I've spoken to about the case, liberal & conservative alike, has said this was a clear instance of judicial activism. Judicial activism can be a good thing, the present case cited as an example.

Perhaps I missed something in my Const. studies. Please enlighten me on my misunderstanding of the subject.

[Xwing]

belercous, on 01 February 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

X-Wing; I see you're a Constituional scholar. Where exactly do you get your information from? It doesn't seem to match up with my studies. Perhaps I missed something, please enlighten me on your beliefs as to when the Federal gov. ought to step in on states & when it shouldn't. You must have some consistent logic, but I suppose I'm too dim to see it.

Have you ever studied the 2A, or have you just taken other's word on it? I've actually studied the subject, doing my own research & all that. I started out believing it was a right granted to everyone. Then I went to university. Seems the B.O.R. didn't originally apply to the states, it was only a restriction on the federal gov.

Well, not being one to let facts trump my belief, I researched the subject a bit more using LexisNexis & WestLaw in grad school. Lo & behold, doing research I discovered that what I was taught in my university's pre-law courses was true. The 2A originaly only applied to the Fed. Gov., not the states. This held true until the McDonald decision came down. Every prof. I've spoken to about the case, liberal & conservative alike, has said this was a clear instance of judicial activism. Judicial activism can be a good thing, the present case cited as an example.

Perhaps I missed something in my Const. studies. Please enlighten me on my misunderstanding of the subject.

Again, with underhanded character assassination!  If you want to argue the points, argue the points, not the person.  It is irrelevant how much you studied under left-wing anti-gun professors.  If you want to talk about why the Federal government should never step in to stop infraction of basic human rights ensconced in the Bill of Rights, argue those points!  If you want to talk about why the Federal government should play "big brother" and trample on every citizen's rights, then argue those points!  If instead, you continue to sarcastically malign others credentials or background while touting your own, there is no point in further discussion.

Back to the actual points (as mentioned in your 3rd paragraph).  How is incorporating the 14th amendment to apply to the 2nd "judicial activism"?  It is Constitutional change, per the amendment process (as opposed to making up "living document" to meet the opinion of the week.)  This was judging how an amendment that was newer applied to earlier amendments.

Edited by Xwing, 01 February 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[Hossua]

belercous, on 01 February 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

X-Wing; I see you're a Constituional scholar. Where exactly do you get your information from? It doesn't seem to match up with my studies. Perhaps I missed something, please enlighten me on your beliefs as to when the Federal gov. ought to step in on states & when it shouldn't. You must have some consistent logic, but I suppose I'm too dim to see it.

Have you ever studied the 2A, or have you just taken other's word on it? I've actually studied the subject, doing my own research & all that. I started out believing it was a right granted to everyone. Then I went to university. Seems the B.O.R. didn't originally apply to the states, it was only a restriction on the federal gov.

Well, not being one to let facts trump my belief, I researched the subject a bit more using LexisNexis & WestLaw in grad school. Lo & behold, doing research I discovered that what I was taught in my university's pre-law courses was true. The 2A originaly only applied to the Fed. Gov., not the states. This held true until the McDonald decision came down. Every prof. I've spoken to about the case, liberal & conservative alike, has said this was a clear instance of judicial activism. Judicial activism can be a good thing, the present case cited as an example.

Perhaps I missed something in my Const. studies. Please enlighten me on my misunderstanding of the subject.

No one disputed that. The whole purpose of these cases has been incorporation.

[belercous]

XWing; I'm not attacking anyone, just their arguments. If someone is mistaken & trying to make a point based upon their knowledge, I point that out. Presenting oneself as knowledgable on a subject opens the door to have their credentials on the subject challenged. Positing belief as fact gaurantees a challenge. If one has a belief, they ought to say its their belief/opinion. How is that "underhanded character assasination?" Nothing underhanded, it's all out in the open.  

Oh yeah, about left-wing professors. Ever watch the movie "Paper Chase?" Prof. Kingsfield was based directly upon Vince Immel. Vince Immel was a Prof. at SLU School of Law during my matriculation there. Real bleeding heart liberal huh? In my time at university & grad school I've only had 3 Prof's whose politics I could discern from their teaching. The vast majority of Profs don't bring their politics into the classroom, they're more concerned about teaching reality than espousing a political view. Why do you make unfounded assumptions? Couldn't be that you're making "underhanded charachter assasinations."

It also appears to me that you're making an "underhanded character assasination" attempt upon myself as you imply that I can't think for myself & am subject to form my opinions soley upon what others have told me. I have done my own research into the 2A, only a part of which was asking those more knowledgable than myself aboyut why the 2A has never been held to grant an individual a right to own a gun. Before I began my studies I too thought that the 2A meant such, and undertook my research seeking to comfirm my belief. See below about judicial activism.

Hossua; The 2A's RKBA has been argued several times after the 14A was enacted. Lost every time until Heller. Overturning well over 100 yrs (that's just after the 14A) of judicial rulings is considered judicial activism, in fact that's the definition of judicial activism.

[Hossua]

belercous, on 03 February 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

XWing; I'm not attacking anyone, just their arguments. If someone is mistaken & trying to make a point based upon their knowledge, I point that out. Presenting oneself as knowledgable on a subject opens the door to have their credentials on the subject challenged. Positing belief as fact gaurantees a challenge. If one has a belief, they ought to say its their belief/opinion. How is that "underhanded character assasination?" Nothing underhanded, it's all out in the open.  

Oh yeah, about left-wing professors. Ever watch the movie "Paper Chase?" Prof. Kingsfield was based directly upon Vince Immel. Vince Immel was a Prof. at SLU School of Law during my matriculation there. Real bleeding heart liberal huh? In my time at university & grad school I've only had 3 Prof's whose politics I could discern from their teaching. The vast majority of Profs don't bring their politics into the classroom, they're more concerned about teaching reality than espousing a political view. Why do you make unfounded assumptions? Couldn't be that you're making "underhanded charachter assasinations."

It also appears to me that you're making an "underhanded character assasination" attempt upon myself as you imply that I can't think for myself & am subject to form my opinions soley upon what others have told me. I have done my own research into the 2A, only a part of which was asking those more knowledgable than myself aboyut why the 2A has never been held to grant an individual a right to own a gun. Before I began my studies I too thought that the 2A meant such, and undertook my research seeking to comfirm my belief. See below about judicial activism.

Hossua; The 2A's RKBA has been argued several times after the 14A was enacted. Lost every time until Heller. Overturning well over 100 yrs (that's just after the 14A) of judicial rulings is considered judicial activism, in fact that's the definition of judicial activism.

And? Someone has to clean up the mess we have made.

[Molly B.]

belercous, on 03 February 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

XWing; I'm not attacking anyone, just their arguments.

This statement is not true. You do not simply state your opinion or attack their arguments. You throw in insult, condescension,  more insult, and then puff yourself up with self-accolades like birds do to make themselves look more imposing.  

Please stick to your points, they look better on you than the other stuff does.

[soundguy]

Sorry to be off topic...

I long for unifying pro carry movement to end this cabin fever.

[Sigma]

Cant wait to read the Brady bunch letter they send out after Ms Meyerscough just gave them another victory