• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry

chromium said:
well you sure aren't doing a good job proving how unjustified that position would be
Click to expand...

your history is that you wouldn't admit what is a good position no matter what the facts are
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The SCOTUS has the final word on what the constitution says regardless of the case (in reference to your own quote "In this case?").

Specific enough for you?
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you and no, they don't have the last word.

Two reasons, 1) The courts can't change the definition of words to suit themselves and 2) Congress can overrule a court ruling.
 
apdst said:
Yes, thank you and no, they don't have the last word.

Two reasons, 1) The courts can't change the definition of words to suit themselves and 2) Congress can overrule a court ruling.
Click to expand...

1) Granted, it wouldn't make sense to say that absolutely any definition that the courts might apply to any word would be fine. However, that point is basically moot, because in practice, the law and its language leave one whole heck of a lot of room for interpretation.

2) False. Congress has no authority whatsoever to directly overturn a SCOTUS ruling. The farthest they can go is to pass a constitutional amendment (which the states still must ratify) that overturns an earlier decision.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
1) Granted, it wouldn't make sense to say that absolutely any definition that the courts might apply to any word would be fine. However, that point is basically moot, because in practice, the law and its language leave one whole heck of a lot of room for interpretation.

2) False. Congress has no authority whatsoever to directly overturn a SCOTUS ruling. The farthest they can go is to pass a constitutional amendment (which the states still must ratify) that overturns an earlier decision.
Click to expand...

1) The courts can't redefine words, period. They can't redefine, "abridged", "free", nor, "infringed", and can't redefine, "bear". The problem with The United States, now, is that there are too many ignorant people that think it can.

2) Korematsu v. The United States was made illegal, not specifically overturned via congressional legislation. Why? Because only The Legislative Branch can make law.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
They don't have to. They already said the 2A is not absolute, and you have no authority to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

And you are playing fast and lose with words again. I don't the people do have the power and authority.

It s not for a court to say what is absolute or not and even a fool can recognise there are no exceptions to "shall not be infringed".
 
apdst said:
1) The courts can't redefine words, period. They can't redefine, "abridged", "free", nor, "infringed", and can't redefine, "bear". The problem with The United States, now, is that there are too many ignorant people that think it can.

2) Korematsu v. The United States was made illegal, not specifically overturned via congressional legislation. Why? Because only The Legislative Branch can make law.
Click to expand...

And never a truer word was spoken. Far to many sycophants think government is the master instead of the employee.
 
apdst said:
1) The courts can't redefine words, period. They can't redefine, "abridged", "free", nor, "infringed", and can't redefine, "bear". The problem with The United States, now, is that there are too many ignorant people that think it can.
Click to expand...
The above is just semantics. The courts have no need to redefine words, when so many words already have different definitions in different contexts.

2) Korematsu v. The United States was made illegal, not specifically overturned via congressional legislation. Why? Because only The Legislative Branch can make law.
Click to expand...
Also wrong. Korematsu was never specifically overturned (or "made illegal"). All that happened was that the acting US Solicitor General made an official statement that his predecessor's defense of the internment order was "in error." The legislative branch played zero role in the Korematsu case.
 
Crimefree said:
And you are playing fast and lose with words again. I don't the people do have the power and authority.
Click to expand...
The people have no authority over the SCOTUS, other than to demand a constitutional amendment or vote in legislators who will back one.

It s not for a court to say what is absolute or not and even a fool can recognise there are no exceptions to "shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...
It is entirely up to the courts to make such statements. The rest of your statement, as before, has no authority.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
1) Granted, it wouldn't make sense to say that absolutely any definition that the courts might apply to any word would be fine. However, that point is basically moot, because in practice, the law and its language leave one whole heck of a lot of room for interpretation.

2) False. Congress has no authority whatsoever to directly overturn a SCOTUS ruling. The farthest they can go is to pass a constitutional amendment (which the states still must ratify) that overturns an earlier decision.
Click to expand...

wrong as usual-they can narrow a term or redefine it to render moot a supreme court decision. One set of cases I used extensively while defending the government was Sutton v United Airlines and also Toyota Motor Manuf. Kentuck, v Williams were overruled by the Congress rejecting the USSC definition of "substantially impairs"
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong as usual-they can narrow a term or redefine it to render moot a supreme court decision. One set of cases I used extensively while defending the government was Sutton v United Airlines and also Toyota Motor Manuf. Kentuck, v Williams were overruled by the Congress rejecting the USSC definition of "substantially impairs"
Click to expand...

What the hell are you babbling about? Since when does Congress adjudicate on any case?
 
TurtleDude said:
your history is that you wouldn't admit what is a good position no matter what the facts are
Click to expand...

i can't even remember the last gun that you - unlike me - *didn't* bring up 'homosexual sodomy' so i have no idea how you can reach that conclusion

here is a fun exercise: try explaining to us how concealed weapons fits within the purview of the 14th amendment's equal protection
 
chromium said:
i can't even remember the last gun that you - unlike me - *didn't* bring up 'homosexual sodomy' so i have no idea how you can reach that conclusion

here is a fun exercise: try explaining to us how concealed weapons fits within the purview of the 14th amendment's equal protection
Click to expand...

easy, if a bureaucrat allows some people to carry concealed based on his arbitrary views but denies others that same "privilege" that violates equal protection-both procedural equal protection and more importantly, substantive equal protection
 
TurtleDude said:
easy, if a bureaucrat allows some people to carry concealed based on his arbitrary views but denies others that same "privilege" that violates equal protection-both procedural equal protection and more importantly, substantive equal protection
Click to expand...

if there's a compelling state interest for instance to allow secret service to do so then no, you aren't entitled to do the same

which is why the CA law that was upheld carves out a vague "good reason" exception. Good luck challenging it if you aren't in the security business, especially after this:

the 2A "does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

and yeah, the supreme court will uphold it, so you better hope it isn't challenged
 
chromium said:
if there's a compelling state interest for instance to allow secret service to do so then no, you aren't entitled to do the same

which is why the CA law that was upheld carves out a vague "good reason" exception. Good luck challenging it if you aren't in the security business, especially after this:

the 2A "does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

and yeah, the supreme court will uphold it, so you better hope it isn't challenged
Click to expand...

that is a red herring, we aren't talking about LEOs but individual private citizens.

CA law was upheld by statist assholes who have armed guards to protect them. Sorry I have no use for them

why don't you make an argument why they are right rather than parroting their nonsense?

and tell me why you are against people with clean records not being able to carry unless some bureaucrat says its ok

would you like the same standard for say gay marriage? may issue licenses?
 
TurtleDude said:
that is a red herring, we aren't talking about LEOs but individual private citizens.

CA law was upheld by statist assholes who have armed guards to protect them. Sorry I have no use for them

why don't you make an argument why they are right rather than parroting their nonsense?

and tell me why you are against people with clean records not being able to carry unless some bureaucrat says its ok

would you like the same standard for say gay marriage? may issue licenses?
Click to expand...

they would say that their position or fame makes them a target, or that their position makes them invaluable, whereas joe blow factory worker doesn't have that concern. I find that very unconvincing as it's always the kids in gangland or the gas station clerk who are at risk and i certainly object to politicians or courts dictating who is expendable. However, it doesn't matter because if private security can't conceal carry, politicians and whatnot will just have LEOs protect them instead (and many already do)
 
chromium said:
they would say that their position or fame makes them a target, or that their position makes them invaluable, whereas joe blow factory worker doesn't have that concern. I find that very unconvincing as it's always the kids in gangland or the gas station clerk who are at risk and i certainly object to politicians or courts dictating who is expendable. However, it doesn't matter because if private security can't conceal carry, politicians and whatnot will just have LEOs protect them instead (and many already do)
Click to expand...

I can think of ONE judge killed in recent history and that was a guy who was a random victim to a turd trying to shoot Gabby Giffords. Lots of "average" people are killed all the time.

bottom line-politicians shouldn't have better access to firearms than other civilians
 
TurtleDude said:
I can think of ONE judge killed in recent history and that was a guy who was a random victim to a turd trying to shoot Gabby Giffords. Lots of "average" people are killed all the time.

bottom line-politicians shouldn't have better access to firearms than other civilians
Click to expand...

that's only a compelling argument for banning concealed weapons for them too
 
chromium said:
that's only a compelling argument for banning concealed weapons for them too
Click to expand...

there is no compelling reason to ban concealed weapons

carrying weapons concealed is better than openly in most cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom