Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Colorado sheriff willing to go to jail rather than enforce proposed gun law at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Manitou If you were some other poster not from this forum, I would tell you to cram ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2019, 12:17 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,314 Times in 1,840 Posts
Default Re: Colorado sheriff willing to go to jail rather than enforce proposed gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
If you were some other poster not from this forum, I would tell you to cram all that bullshlt you posted where the sun doesn't shine. You are babbling about natural rights, non-lethal weapons, limited self-defense, unicorns shltting rainbow colored poop, whatever in Hell a stoned mind can conjure up. Instead, I will say, "May you live forever."


The above post has been deemed as stupid for one's mental health, by Manitou.
Apparently you're unconcerned with the "unalienable" (natural) rights that our government was created to protect. I would suggest you read John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government that the founders of the United States relied upon because it was the first essay that established the basis for the natural/unalienable/inalienable rights of the person. Without Locke there's no foundation for government in the United States and the Declaration of Independence is "just another goddamned piece of paper" (a quotation about the US Constitution once credited to former President Bush).

It's sad that there are Americans that don't have a clue when it comes to the history and foundation of our government in the United States. The teaching of John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government should be a mandatory class in all high schools throughout the United States. Without it the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution make little sense.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #92 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:17 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,350
Thanks: 549
Thanked 6,561 Times in 4,712 Posts
Default Re: Colorado sheriff willing to go to jail rather than enforce proposed gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
As a gun owner I'm far from being an anti-gun advocate and, because I don't know the exact provisions of the ordinance, I don't necessarily disagree with the Court's decision that:



Please note that the decision states the ordinance went "too far" but that another similar ordinance that doesn't go quite that far would be Constitutional under the Court's decision.

Still, I would defer to a Supreme Court decision written by the late Justice Scalia.


Antonin Scalia on Gun Control

Scalia specifically establishes that laws that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms or that restrict the types of weapons, how those weapons are used, and that restrict the purposes for which the weapon are used by Congress are still valid and enforceable.

The Second Amendment is not without restriction by Congress that still has the authority to define what firearms are available to the public, where they can be lawfully taken, for what purposed they can be lawfully owned, and the manner in which the public can possess those firearms.

For example it would be perfectly lawful and in compliance with the Second Amendment for Congress to restrict all detachable magazines to five rounds or less with an exception for specially licensed individuals that can be allowed to have higher capacity detachable magazines for special purposes. No Second Amendment violation according to Justice Scalia's broader decision in DC v Heller.

The general militia principle expressed in the Second Amendment has become moot. While state constitutions refer to the private (or citizen) militia clause in the Second Amendment there are no states today that maintain an organized citizen militia. None have existed for decades with the last "citizen militia" being officially disbanded soon after the end of WW II.

Citizen militias have been replaced by the National Guard that provides the weapons and training necessary for a "well regulated militia" that's "necessary for the security of a free state" under the Constitution.

An interesting historical note. When the Second Amendment was ratified the US Army had firearms that were inferior to those owned by the public. The Army was still using smooth bore muskets while "rifled" firearms were already in use by the general public. Today the US Army has highly advanced firearms that are far more deadly than those available to the general public. The argument that the people could require these specialized firearms that are designed for use in warfare, or facsimiles of them (e.g. M16 and AR15) are absurd because we no longer have citizen militias that could be called up to go to war. The National Guard has reason to have these firearms because it's our militia today while the private citizen has no need whatsoever for weapons of war or their facsimile.
There is no way in Heaven or Hell that will make me believe you are pro-gun in any manner. I will not bother explaining.

You seem to think that, in the event of some tyrant taking over the government, the National Guard will automatically go to overthrow the tyrant.

Lastly, again--

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't dumbasses understand? Not necessarily referring to anybody here.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #93 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:23 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,350
Thanks: 549
Thanked 6,561 Times in 4,712 Posts
Default Re: Colorado sheriff willing to go to jail rather than enforce proposed gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Apparently you're unconcerned with the "unalienable" (natural) rights that our government was created to protect. I would suggest you read John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government that the founders of the United States relied upon because it was the first essay that established the basis for the natural/unalienable/inalienable rights of the person. Without Locke there's no foundation for government in the United States and the Declaration of Independence is "just another goddamned piece of paper" (a quotation about the US Constitution once credited to former President Bush).

It's sad that there are Americans that don't have a clue when it comes to the history and foundation of our government in the United States. The teaching of John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government should be a mandatory class in all high schools throughout the United States. Without it the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution make little sense.
I keep saying that it is not possible to debate with any anti-gun person. Especially the ones who go along the lines of "I'm pro-gun, but...".

John Locke is not needed for there to be any foundation for our government, so please peddle your praise of some person somewhere else. Try Dumbasses Underground.
Reply With Quote
  #94 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2019, 09:36 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 983
Thanks: 916
Thanked 1,362 Times in 627 Posts
Default Re: Colorado sheriff willing to go to jail rather than enforce proposed gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Please note that the decision states the ordinance went "too far" but that another similar ordinance that doesn't go quite that far would be Constitutional under the Court's decision.
As I said, on this question (banning firearm businesses) I am comfortable with the way the case law is developing in the 7th Circuit. Between the District Court decision that we quoted (that was not appealed by Chicago) and the multiple Ezell v. Chicago decisions in the 7th Circuit, have answered your question about what the permissible level of regulation is for ranges in the city. The city tried restricting zoning, allowing ranges only in industrial areas, minimum age restrictions and other crap . . . They keep losing. So the opening you see is not really an opportunity to restrict gun rights a little here, a little there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Still, I would defer to a Supreme Court decision written by the late Justice Scalia.
So, you can not offer any on-point citation or direct quotes to support your theory that the, "Second Amendment . . . doesn't protect the commerce in arms that would include the production, distribution, sales, and trading in arms.". All it seems you can offer is your analysis / extrapolation of Heller, which is, as usual, a slanted over-reading of someone else's slanted paraphrase of Heller's and thus way more wrong than right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Scalia specifically establishes that laws that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms or that restrict the types of weapons, how those weapons are used, and that restrict the purposes for which the weapon are used by Congress are still valid and enforceable.
Scalia isn't making a conclusive statement on the Constitutionality of those exemplary laws, he's saying that the limited Heller opinion (examining only the challenged DC statutes) shouldn't be used to create doubts about the constitutionality of those exemplary laws. What you are doing, making determinations that they ARE constitutional is just as wrong.

Interesting thing is though, Heller has been recognized to say that some legal infirmity in those laws NOT BEING EXAMINED IN HELLER might exist. Scalia describes his list of exemplary laws as merely "presumptively lawful" in footnote 26, which means he concedes that they can in fact be placed in doubt and challenged . . . and challenged they are!

Even restrictions from Scalia's list that you would consider unquestionable, like felon dispossession, have been challenged because of Heller. In 2011 the 3rd Circuit said:

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted."

U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)


Of course felon disablement of gun rights were/are sustained because they are grounded in legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional and common law.

As we have seen in the 7th Circuit, laws restricting commercial businesses that serve gun owning citizens are subject to plenty of "doubt". Your invention of an expansive allowance for government to essentially write any "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" it desires is ridiculous.

What I'm showing is that the blanket endorsement of gun control laws you read into that Heller paragraph, that Hellershould be read to erect a wall of invincibility around government's desire to restrict guns, does not exist . . . it is a figment of your liberal, gun grabbing mind.

.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
colorado, enforce, gun, jail, law, proposed, rather, sheriff, than, willing

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0