Second Amendment goes beyond the right to own a single gun

[TurtleDude]

It depends on the ruling. The recent Second Amendment rulings clearly are little more than the work of NRA stooges. Any similar ruling should be ignored.

you really are showing you are going off the deep end in your blind hatred for gun owners. Who appointed that Judge? he was confirmed with the Senate's approval.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Certainly not. I'm perfectly willing to accept honest opinions. Opinions delivered to support extremist dogma, however, are not honest opinions.

Alright. So prove that the judge gave a dishonest opinion/verdict. Have you even read the court docs? I did. All 52 pages. Tell me, can you prove what the defendants couldn't prove? That being that such a law as the case is about would have even been accepted at the time the 2nd and 14th Amendments were written and approved? How about proving the legitimate state interest to withhold for 10 days a legally bought gun even when the person in question already has passed all the requirements previously and currently owns a gun?

Can you prove anything that the defendants couldn't prove? Surely you can do this as it would be the only thing that could prove the judge "dishonest".

 

[Joe Steel]

i did not read the whole article, but from what i gleaned.

the case is whether the state can institute a new waiting period, therefore someone must have challenged the law.

since it would be a 2nd amendment issue, and a person or group ......they have a RIGHT....to petition government to hear any case.

and government under original jurisdiction can hear the case.

as to judges be they federal or state, their oath states they will uphold the Constitution.

That's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Can you give me something to support your opinion?

 

[Joe Steel]

you really are showing you are going off the deep end in your blind hatred for gun owners. Who appointed that Judge? he was confirmed with the Senate's approval.

Clinton appointed him and he was confirmed by a Republican Senate. That's a burden on his credibility. Clinton is little more than a Republican and Republicans are little more than NRA stooges.

 

[TurtleDude]

Clinton appointed him and he was confirmed by a Republican Senate. That's a burden on his credibility. Clinton is little more than a Republican and Republicans are little more than NRA stooges.

your posts have gone from hysterical nonsense to outright insane. Clinton's administration was one of the two most anti gun in history

your irrational hatred of gun owners is really disturbing

 

[Crovax]

I agree. Just as long as other states aren't bound by federal laws and court rulings as well. The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states, although I would be in favor of an amendment applying them on that level, as Madison was.

Those yearning to be victimized could move to states like California, and consequently draw criminals away from other states. Meanwhile, I'd have fun playing with my new automatic weapon.

I think we call that the 14th amendment

 

[cpgrad08]

Clinton appointed him and he was confirmed by a Republican Senate. That's a burden on his credibility. Clinton is little more than a Republican and Republicans are little more than NRA stooges.

You must have an "Iron Curtain" around your face because you are so blind.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

I think we call that the 14th amendment

Well, the selective incorporation doctrine. That is actually a creation of the courts...decades after the 14th amendment was ratified.

First Principles - Incorporation Doctrine

 

[braindrain]

Clinton appointed him and he was confirmed by a Republican Senate. That's a burden on his credibility. Clinton is little more than a Republican and Republicans are little more than NRA stooges.

I almost wonder if you are just trolling here. I don't think anyone could really be this clueless. At least I had hoped not. Says something about the education system in this country if you are serious.

 

[Joe Steel]

Alright. So prove that the judge gave a dishonest opinion/verdict. Have you even read the court docs? I did. All 52 pages. Tell me, can you prove what the defendants couldn't prove? That being that such a law as the case is about would have even been accepted at the time the 2nd and 14th Amendments were written and approved? How about proving the legitimate state interest to withhold for 10 days a legally bought gun even when the person in question already has passed all the requirements previously and currently owns a gun?

Can you prove anything that the defendants couldn't prove? Surely you can do this as it would be the only thing that could prove the judge "dishonest".

I wasn't speaking of this decision. I was speaking of Supreme Court decisions in recent years.

 

[Joe Steel]

your posts have gone from hysterical nonsense to outright insane. Clinton's administration was one of the two most anti gun in history

your irrational hatred of gun owners is really disturbing

I was speaking of the judge's appointment.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I wasn't speaking of this decision. I was speaking of Supreme Court decisions in recent years.

Please tell me you're not referring to the Heller decision.

 

[Gaius46]

What's your point? Where in all that is the power judge the constitutionality of a law?

Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 1803. You can argue all you want that the decision was wrong but it has been the law of the land for 211 years and is not ever going to be rolled back.

 

[TurtleDude]

I was speaking of the judge's appointment.

yeah that was pretty inane

 

[TurtleDude]

Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 1803. You can argue all you want that the decision was wrong but it has been the law of the land for 211 years and is not ever going to be rolled back.

and I think many of his fellow travelers on the extreme left would be really upset if states started telling federal judges-sorry Judge, your ruling making us recognize gay marriage is null and void. same with abortion

 

[Gaius46]

and I think many of his fellow travelers on the extreme left would be really upset if states started telling federal judges-sorry Judge, your ruling making us recognize gay marriage is null and void. same with abortion

I love for states to start pushing back on the ridiculously broad interpretation the courts have given the Commerce Clause. I'm sure Mr Steel wouldn't like that either.

 

[TurtleDude]

I love for states to start pushing back on the ridiculously broad interpretation the courts have given the Commerce Clause. I'm sure Mr Steel wouldn't like that either.

several states have enacted laws that state that weapons made in said state are presumed NOT to have moved in interstate commerce. without an IC nexus, the federal government has ZERO power to regulate said firearms unless they are taken onto federal lands or federal court houses. the Commerce clause has been raped and sodomized so many times by Democrats in Congress that it has several terminal cases of STDs. Its time to return the commerce clause to what it was intended -to allow congress to regulate FOREIGN trade and to prevent one state from burdening INTERSTATE commerce

it was never intended to tell a citizen of Ohio what sort of firearms he can keep in his home

 

[Gaius46]

several states have enacted laws that state that weapons made in said state are presumed NOT to have moved in interstate commerce. without an IC nexus, the federal government has ZERO power to regulate said firearms unless they are taken onto federal lands or federal court houses. the Commerce clause has been raped and sodomized so many times by Democrats in Congress that it has several terminal cases of STDs. Its time to return the commerce clause to what it was intended -to allow congress to regulate FOREIGN trade and to prevent one state from burdening INTERSTATE commerce

it was never intended to tell a citizen of Ohio what sort of firearms he can keep in his home

amen.

 

[Master PO]

That's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Can you give me something to support your opinion?

Barron vs Baltimore

bizarre?...you ..are the one with the most bizarre ideas of American government i have ever heard.

saying people should just disregard the Constitution, is a sure sign.

 

[Joe Steel]

Please tell me you're not referring to the Heller decision.

It's an insult to the very idea of intelligent thought.

 

[Joe Steel]

Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 1803. You can argue all you want that the decision was wrong but it has been the law of the land for 211 years and is not ever going to be rolled back.

You're right. That doesn't mean it has to stay that way. The case was decided incorrectly so patriotic Americans should ignore it.

 

[Joe Steel]

Barron vs Baltimore ...

How is it applicable to anything posted in this topic?

 

[US Conservative]

The State of California should ignore this ruling and continue with whatever gun control it wishes to impose. This, and most other recent rulings, reflect the flawed, one hesitates to say "logic," of recent Supreme Court opinions which elevated gun cult delusions to the level of Supreme Court opinions. The State must keep the welfare of its citizens as its primary focus and implement strict gun control no matter what the gun cult and its stooges and the Supreme Court say.

Never mind what California can do. Why do you hate the Bill of Rights? What other constitutional rights do you oppose?

 

[Master PO]

How is it applicable to anything posted in this topic?

i piggybacked off of what you said.

you stated the federal courts would have no review,...any citizen can petition government to hear a case of law concerning rights.

2nd amendment is a right.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It's an insult to the very idea of intelligent thought.

:roll: Oh yes, its an insult to the very idea of intelligent thought to dare think that people have a Right to own a gun to protect themselves against criminals both out of and in the government. :roll:

Considering the Heller decision to be some sort of "insult" is the same as considering peoples lives as worthless. A despicable mindset imo.