Chicago to Supreme court .. "we cant hear you"

[Factor]

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Factor

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

Rest assured, they are well aware of it, but they see it in a different way than you or I probably do, and the courts occassionally side with them. Many people, not just democrats, see the Constitutution as a "living" document, and I don't mean "living" in the sense that it can be amended, I mean "living" in the sense that it can be interpreted in the context of whatever happens to be going on at the time.

How to put this...... Some people think of the Constitution as law, and others think of it as a set of guidelines. There is Constitutional law, and there is law based upon interpretation of the Constitution. The two can, at times, have remarakably little to do with each other.


@Molon Labe - Will you please be my friend? <puppy-dog eyes> I'm trying to become a criminal defense lawyer and I could really use the perspective of someone who is a real lawyer from time to time, especially once I get my prereqs out of the way.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

@Molon Labe - Will you please be my friend? <puppy-dog eyes> I'm trying to become a criminal defense lawyer and I could really use the perspective of someone who is a real lawyer from time to time, especially once I get my prereqs out of the way.

Feel free to run anything by me any time you want. I'm not an old pro by any means though.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The relevant part of the 13th Amendment
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
prevents the states from denying rights that are guaranteed to all US citizens, but nothing is said about local ordinances.

Only Justice Thomas (and me, FWIW) agree that the case should have been decided under the P&I clause. Whenever part of the Bill of Rights is held against the States, it's done under the due process clause of the 14th Amdendment, not Privileges and Immunities. Also, local governments derive their power from the State governments, so a restriction against the States binds localities as well.

Originally Posted by gimpy

Remember, If ones constitutional right (in this case the right to bear arms) is conflicting with another right (the right to life) then one cannot stand. And i'm pretty the right to life trumps the right to bear arms.

The only way the right to life could conflict with the right to bear arms would be if the bearer was so weak that picking up the weapon would give him/her a heart attack. Aside from that, the act of carrying a weapon cannot kill anyone. That you need to stretch the idea of a "conflict" beyond any semblance of rationality belies the weakness of your position.

[antikristuseke]

Banning carrying of firearms in not a solution, as it has been said it only disarms those carrying lawfully to begin with. A solution would be to achieve a state in society where carrying of firearms would not be seen as a necessity, but how to go about that, I do not know.
There are a number of social issues that need to be addressed, that much is certain, before the public perception of safety changes. But given what american culture is like (with my limited knowledge of it) that seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Only Justice Thomas (and me, FWIW) agree that the case should have been decided under the P&I clause. Whenever part of the Bill of Rights is held against the States, it's done under the due process clause of the 14th Amdendment, not Privileges and Immunities. Also, local governments derive their power from the State governments, so a restriction against the States binds localities as well.

I think I understand, but I'm not much better with law than I am with math. I was mainly addressing the person who wanted to rail against the 'other side' for not understanding the Constitution, when it was fairly clear that he didn't either. I study history mostly, and the history of that entire era fascinates me, so I have studied the history of the law as it was seen at the time, somewhat. I don't by any means claim to be an expert.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think I understand, but I'm not much better with law than I am with math. I was mainly addressing the person who wanted to rail against the 'other side' for not understanding the Constitution, when it was fairly clear that he didn't either. I study history mostly, and the history of that entire era fascinates me, so I have studied the history of the law as it was seen at the time, somewhat. I don't by any means claim to be an expert.

No prob. The reason it's a little confusing is that the Court made a godawful mistake when it declined to use the Privileges and Immunities clause to bind the states in a case over a century ago. Not long after, knowing they made a mistake but unwilling to admit it, they used the Due Process clause in later cases to accomplish the same thing--but with a very strained interpretation of the words. Thus, the oxymoronic "substantive due process" was born and became the foundation that our rights stand on against State infringement.

So it's not that you're really wrong... the Court was wrong, and won't fess up to it. But since they're the highest court in the land, they get to determine what interpretations are officially correct or not, so even though you're right, you're wrong.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Rest assured, they are well aware of it, but they see it in a different way than you or I probably do, and the courts occassionally side with them. Many people, not just democrats, see the Constitutution as a "living" document, and I don't mean "living" in the sense that it can be amended, I mean "living" in the sense that it can be interpreted in the context of whatever happens to be going on at the time.

How to put this...... Some people think of the Constitution as law, and others think of it as a set of guidelines. There is Constitutional law, and there is law based upon interpretation of the Constitution. The two can, at times, have remarakably little to do with each other.


@Molon Labe - Will you please be my friend? <puppy-dog eyes> I'm trying to become a criminal defense lawyer and I could really use the perspective of someone who is a real lawyer from time to time, especially once I get my prereqs out of the way.

Its the same dumb **** as people seeing the Bible as something you can interpret depending on what the situation is and what you want the outcome to be.

They see what they want to see, and unfortunately for us the entire Democratic Party save a few good ones, see the world without a U.S.A and are doing everything within and without their power to make it so.

For the sake of our country I vote that we line every single on of them up and put a piece of lead squarely between their eyes. And at least impeach this raving lunatic that we have in office. So we can expunge his "Nobel peace prize winning contributions to humanity" (i.e jack ****) and re-write it. I mean its clear the Dems "rigged" the election, and not by counting votes. This my friends is the true meaning of ****** rigging. They knew that if they put a Black man on the ticket that would get a sure win for them. And of course it would, because they expected 90% of the black community to vote because of color (which most of them did, not all) and not leadership, experience and knowledge which is important to a real leader.

Another important thing about being a leader. Take responsibility, I love how the Dems keep blaming everything on Bush. I haerd them blaming the BP spill in GoM on Bush. The sad and pathetic thing is there are stupid people out there that believe it.

No racism is implied(I am far far from racist). If you are of said color and can't handle that word, then practice your preaching and gtfover it.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For the sake of our country I vote that we line every single on of them up and put a piece of lead squarely between their eyes.

Well, at least you want this voted on. Have to keep it legal.

No racism is implied(I am far far from racist). If you are of said color and can't handle that word, then practice your preaching and gtfover it.

Maybe not racist, no. Moron strikes a nicer chord.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I mean its clear the Dems "rigged" the election, and not by counting votes. This my friends is the true meaning of __________

Classy. Real classy. Well, at least we know where you stand. I'm sure Stormfront would love your brand of cleverness.

They knew that if they put a Black man on the ticket that would get a sure win for them.

Yeah because that worked out so well for Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Shirley Chisolm, and Al Sharpton.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Factor

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

Do you? The Bill of Rights guarantees that the Federal Government will not interfere with the natural rights of citizens. It doesn't interfere with State or local governments at all. That was one of the fears of the Founders, that the Federal Government would gather too much authority over the states.

The relevant part of the 13th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

prevents the states from denying rights that are guaranteed to all US citizens, but nothing is said about local ordinances. Even in the much fabled Tombstone, AZ during the Earp era they had ordinances banning open carry on the city streets.

It's a good question and an interesting standoff, and I too will be curious to see how it plays out.

But don't say somebody else doesn't understand it until you have made a thorough study yourself.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Factor

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

Why don't you explain it to us now? Please. Show us how much you know about the constitution and the Supreme Court decision. Please.

[Platapus]

The relevant part of the 13th Amendment
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

psst, 14th amendment. Not 13th.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

psst, 14th amendment. Not 13th.

You're right. I was reading both at the same time. It will remain uncorrected because you caught it before I did.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You're right. I was reading both at the same time. It will remain uncorrected because you caught it before I did.

lets split the difference and all it the 13 1/2 amendment.

That sound fair.

[Skybird]

If I understand it, then that Chicago law makes 5 hours training mandatory, and limites the hnumber of weapons somebody can buy to 1 per month. that'S it. While one can argue whethe ror not 5 hours training is sufficient, in principle I neither object to mandatory training for gun owners, mandatory weapon licenses, and limiting the number of weapons somebody may own. While I said in the other weapon thread that I have u-turned on my former objection to legal permission for carrying private guns, I see it that way for other, more prgamtaic reasons than due to some principal statement in a constitution that worded it the way it did from a historical context more than 200 years that is no longer existent. I still think that private persons should be forbidden to own assault rifles, submachine guns and stuff like that, but that permissions should be restricted to pistols, revolvers, and hunting guns. I think owners should hold a license for which they have to undergo obligatory, suffient training and theory test, mental health test - and in an ideal world: a to-be-developed character evaluation -, and that thismoicense should legitimate them to own a limited number of firearms for self protection or hunting purposes. In Germany, green weapon cards allow the owner to own up to three pistols. And more a prvate citizen does not need.

A right to stockpile heavier weapons and even miluitary items becasue somebody claims to be a collector, I still reject, for the same reason why I would not accept the private collection of industrial explosives, etc.

To me, it is about self-defence against criminals exclusively - not about private people arming up like one-man-armies because they have hallucinations of hollywood-style invasions of mega gangs storming their property with grendade throwers and heavy machine guns against which they must defend like the Germans at Omaha Beach. That is just madman's maniac fantasies. Instead of buying an assault rifle, maybe better throw out that TV from your appartment.

I think it would be good practice to have licences also being limited to automatically become invalid after 18-24 months if constant regular practicing is not proven in some way. See a parallel to a flying license here. If you do not fly a certain minimum of hours per year or half-year, it becomes invalid automatically, since constant practice is a life-insurrance in flying - for people in the air as well as on the ground. I think it should not be seen different with firearms. Even more when I remeber one, two encounters with sunday hunters I had in the forests. There is a reason why sport shooters and professional forest hunters and rangers hate these amateurs like the plague over here.

Also, weapons and alcohol, like cars, is a total no-no. You carry a gun currently? No alcohol then . Period.

So, a principal right to own a revolver, pistol or hunting gun, if a private person wants to own that? Yes. But only with the above mentioned restrictions. In principle it is an in parts milder gun control law as we already have it in Germany. A principle right or need to stockpile heavy weapons and ammo like a hamster, I neither see nor would accept.

As long as you live in a society of any form, there is simply no such thing as an unlimited ammount of freedom for the individual. the society sets limts and borders. There must be found a compromise that is sufficiently balanced for the individual's and the community's interests. Utopic maximum demands for unlimited liberty and freedom - lead either to the totalitarian tyranny of the colective/community, or the anarchistic rebellion of the individual outlaw.