I couldn't care less if you want me to do that-not going to happen.
No link? LOL, Obviously I knew you had none, I set you up.
and isn't it interesting about the "bad guy" in your story not having a gun?
You lost big time in this exchange. By your own hand. LOL
They weren't common use, and they were unusually dangerous, thus the amendment.
They weren't common use, and they were unusually dangerous, thus the amendment.
States Constitutions authority is derived from and affirmed via the tenth 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.”. State laws/local municipalities draw their authority from the State’s Constitution, within parameters of the United States Constitution (with respect to the Supremacy Clause).State constitutions. City laws.
You’re correct. Temporarily removing firearms, pending a formal hearing, from an individual deemed by a judge to potentially be a hazard to him/herself is a preemptive measure.Red flag laws are preemptive on the possibility that someone might commit a crime.
Speaking of preemptive ^^. Another case where the judge found that the police did not have a duty to preemptively act. Again, the judges decision was not related to a duty to protect at the time of need.Let's get back to your 14th Amendment claim:
"The 7th Circuit Court's decision to uphold the District Court's dismissal in summary judgment was affirmed. A state or county agency does not have an obligation under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to prevent child abuse when the child is 1) in parental, not agency custody, and 2) the state did not create the danger of abuse or increase the child's vulnerability to abuse. Failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.".
Not a Constitutional issue. Public duty doctrine is a personal injury law principle. PDD does not free police officers from their duty to protect citizens in need of their help.Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine that the police cannot be held liable to failure to protect anyone.
The word "need" doesn't appear any where in the Bill of Rights.
Outlawing guns is unconstitutional. Confiscating private property without due process is unconstitutional.
Deal with it.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS, with Antonin Scalia leading the way, disagree with your interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I don't know where you got this crazy idea that the Bill of Rights means any crazy person can carry any crazy weapon they want, anywhere they want. It's pretty silly.
The Supreme Court never said that outlawing guns is constitutional. You need to stop telling that lie.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
-Antonin Scalia
Sure they did. They have been saying that since the 19th century. Where have you been?
Here is justice Scalia himself to explain the majority opinion of the SCOTUS on this:
Notice the conjunctions:
"explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
What guns were outlawed in the 19th century, and which SCOTUS decision affirmed that?
Sure they did. They have been saying that since the 19th century. Where have you been?
Here is justice Scalia himself to explain the majority opinion of the SCOTUS on this:
Why does that matter? Scalia was not writing in the 19th century.
Show me in Castle Rock v Gonzales where it says, or implies, the local pd had no responsibility to protect it's citizens. All I see is refusal to allow a lawsuit for failing to enforce a restraining order. It does not address the local pd’s responsibility to protect.
The state has a responsibility to provide for the safety of all its citizens. Including from each other.
Have you seen any of the “red flag” laws struck down? Why do you think they haven’t been?
Scalia was talking about nukes and surface-to-air missiles and stuff like that.
I’m betting you haven’t read/understood all that I’ve posted.Might you be able to show a link to any SCOTUS case at all that determines that the police and the state DOES have a responsibility to provide for the safety of its citizens? I'm betting you cannot.
It matters because you made the claim that the court has been saying it since the 19th century.
6th:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Educate me, how is this amendment being infringed?
Or the 7th:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
They didn't have nukes in the 19th century. Nice try, though. You may want to try again.
Why does that matter? Scalia was not writing in the 19th century.
Sure they did. They have been saying that since the 19th century. Where have you been?
Here is justice Scalia himself to explain the majority opinion of the SCOTUS on this:
He was saying that the SCOTUS has been saying it since the 19th century, and he is saying it now.
Bless your heart, you are really furiously trying. It's a little sad to see how much of a pretzel you are trying to twist this into.
Sure they did. They have been saying that since the 19th century. Where have you been?
Here is justice Scalia himself to explain the majority opinion of the SCOTUS on this:
I’m betting you haven’t read/understood all that I’ve posted.
You made the claim that SCOTUS has been saying that outlawing guns is Constitutional since the 19th century. Please cite the case.
No, YOU said it:
Scalia is not good enough a citation for legal history and case precedents now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?