Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
History Has Been Made InThe US This Week
#1
I placed this here because history has been made this week by the Supreme Court of the United States.
And the Dem Ones all have got their panties in a wad over them.

Two landmark decisions were handed down this week, for the right to Bare Arms, and the Protection of Life.

First for the over 100 year old law in New York which stated that a person should show cause to get a license to carry a fire arm, which was released yesterday.

Judge Thomas wrote,


Quote:"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'"Thomas wrote. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."

Link: Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law, expanding concealed carry rights

I agree, in fact i don't think you should have to have a license at all, but here I might face some disagreement. I do agree that nut jobs and people that have committed and convicted of violent crimes using firearms or any short of weapon shouldn't be able to carry or even own one, that's just common sense.

Also they have not taken away the states rights to pass laws for licensing requirements, just very prohibitive ones. Which is as it should be.

Judges Kavanaugh and    Roberts said, as from above link


Quote:In a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanuagh noted the court's decision does not prohibit states from imposing licensing requirements for carrying handguns, and leaves untouched existing regimes in 43 states. Instead, it only impacts more stringent licensing rules in affect in six states, including New York.


Second, Roe v Wade has been thrown out, as it should be. The Constitution doesn't mentions abortions any where in any clause amendment or code. In fact there are only three crimes mentioned in it, they are Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting. all other laws are covered under the Necessary And Proper Clause, and Commerce Clause, and even in those there was nothing written or passed.

Not going to go into my thoughts on this other than to say, again it should be left up to the states to govern on this.

What gets me is that people are fussing saying they have done away with  both of these. No they haven't they have just taken it out of the federal purview and given it back to the states, except for protecting a written right.






.
[Image: TWBB.png]
























Reply
#2
The push back is contrived. Non-organic. 

"News" Watchers have been told what to feel and what to say. Not anything they have reasoned via their own agency. 

The pertinent portion of the CC law in New York was unconstitutional. It was akin to saying unless you are important enough or know somebody at city hall, you can't speak your mind or worship as you see fit. The rest of CC law is not affected. Felons still cannot get a CC. Everyone still has to undergo a psych evaluation. It costs money. Training is involved. Etc. 

But of course it will be spun as blood in the streets. Corpses of children piled to the rafters. Love and tolerance must be demonstrated by harming anybody who disagrees with the programming. I am so woke and amazing. 

Roe v. Wade??? The SCOTUS decision does NOT outlaw abortion or any other "healthcare". It just pushed it back to the states where it originally was. I am sure some states will go very fundamentalist on the matter but that is for the citizens of that state to work out. If you are a big supporter of abortion and your state does something you don't like, you should be happy with this decision because you will have more leverage at the state/local level than the federal level. 

In my state, the regular suspects have already descended on the capital to voice their... incoherent screeching. It is their right to do so. I disagree with them but I will not call their actions an "insurrection" or "assault on democracy". Call me weird that way. 

Regardless, it is a good week for the Constitution.
Reply
#3
(06-24-2022, 04:23 PM)hounddoghowlie Wrote: I agree, in fact i don't think you should have to have a license at all, but here I might face some disagreement. I do agree that nut jobs and people that have committed and convicted of violent crimes using firearms or any short of weapon shouldn't be able to carry or even own one, that's just common sense.

Could make for some interesting debate.  I know I don't want strangers on my property carrying firearms. In fact, if you come up on my property toting, you might be surprised to find holes appearing all over yourself before you hear any words at all. I don't think the President should have strangers roaming around the White House carrying firearms ... he and his family live there. But, other government buildings ... why not?

I don't think felons should be prohibited from carrying firearms.  In fact, I think that's complete bullshit. Felons probably have a greater need for self-defense than Regular Joe. If you think there's going to be a future problem with a felon ... keep their ass behind bars ... where they belong. Once they've paid what they owe, they're square with the house and should be allowed to resume their lives ... not running on some second-chance bullshit.  If they're getting a second chance ... let 'em take it in another country ... but, better to just keep 'em locked away from the rest of us.

Imagine this scenario: When anyone is scheduled to be released from prison, they are forced to purchase a firearm and required to carry it for a week before being discharged.  Think how quickly the prison culture would reform itself. -chuckle

The people with firearms who scare me the most are the ones who don't realize how dangerous they (the untrained) actually are.
Reply
#4
(06-24-2022, 08:04 PM)Snarl Wrote:
(06-24-2022, 04:23 PM)hounddoghowlie Wrote: I agree, in fact i don't think you should have to have a license at all, but here I might face some disagreement. I do agree that nut jobs and people that have committed and convicted of violent crimes using firearms or any short of weapon shouldn't be able to carry or even own one, that's just common sense.

Could make for some interesting debate.  I know I don't want strangers on my property carrying firearms. In fact, if you come up on my property toting, you might be surprised to find holes appearing all over yourself before you hear any words at all. I don't think the President should have strangers roaming around the White House carrying firearms ... he and his family live there. But, other government buildings ... why not?

I don't think felons should be prohibited from carrying firearms.  In fact, I think that's complete bullshit. Felons probably have a greater need for self-defense than Regular Joe. If you think there's going to be a future problem with a felon ... keep their ass behind bars ... where they belong. Once they've paid what they owe, they're square with the house and should be allowed to resume their lives ... not running on some second-chance bullshit.  If they're getting a second chance ... let 'em take it in another country ... but, better to just keep 'em locked away from the rest of us.

Imagine this scenario: When anyone is scheduled to be released from prison, they are forced to purchase a firearm and required to carry it for a week before being discharged.  Think how quickly the prison culture would reform itself. -chuckle

The people with firearms who scare me the most are the ones who don't realize how dangerous they (the untrained) actually are.

Quote:I know I don't want strangers on my property carrying firearms. In fact, if you come up on my property toting, you might be surprised to find holes appearing all over yourself before you hear any words at all. I don't think the President should have strangers roaming around the White House carrying firearms ... he and his family live there. But, other government buildings ... why not?

not carrying on someone else private property makes for good manners, carrying on private property that is open to the public and not posted as a gun free zone i don't see as a problem. if posted as gun free then it should be honored.

the white house yea that's a no brainier, other government buildings well, that's another story. aren't schools government buildings, the capitol, courthouses, Navy, Army, or any other military bases.

three shootings come to mind in government buildings, the Census Bureau in 2015,  in the capitol building around 1998 or 99, where a nut job went in and shot two capitol police, another was the in the Navy Yard in DC in 2013 i think it was. there are other at the federal, state and local levels than have happened over the years. now granted they were already gun free zones, and that didn't stop people from doing it.

but say someone is carrying legally or by their right, and goes down to the courthouse, county clerks offices, or any other gov building to take care of some sort of business, something happens where the government screwed him over and he goes off ( it has been known to happen, i'm sure everybody here has been down to the court house, county clerks office, DMV and been told by one of the pencils pushers some that pisses you off and nothing you can do about it)  pulls his pistol empties the magazine, reloads and empties it a second time, killing bunch of people and wounding others before he is killed or captured by who ever, be it law enforcement or another armed citizen.  wouldn't that be a good enough reason to restrict even law abiding citizens from carrying in government buildings. if before he went in was stopped at the door and told to check his weapon or take it home and secure it. after all the people working there are not all assholes their just doing a job trying to make a living, now they are dead because some nut job or sane person who went off got in with a firearm.

on the convicted felon deal, if the crime is not a violent one and it wasn't committed with weapon be a a firearm or anything else then yea rights should be restored, which in some states the felon can request them to be restored. but if any kind weapon is used, gun, knife, car, baseball bat, brick or what ever, and their released, all rights but owning a firearm, should be restored. I believe in the benefit of doubt and having paid your debt, but they have already shown their not above using a weapon on someone, a gun is much easier to use than most of them other than a car, the others you have to get up close and personal. a car and firearm not so much.
[Image: TWBB.png]
























Reply
#5
(06-24-2022, 09:49 PM)hounddoghowlie Wrote:
(06-24-2022, 08:04 PM)Snarl Wrote:
(06-24-2022, 04:23 PM)hounddoghowlie Wrote: I agree, in fact i don't think you should have to have a license at all, but here I might face some disagreement. I do agree that nut jobs and people that have committed and convicted of violent crimes using firearms or any short of weapon shouldn't be able to carry or even own one, that's just common sense.

Could make for some interesting debate.  I know I don't want strangers on my property carrying firearms. In fact, if you come up on my property toting, you might be surprised to find holes appearing all over yourself before you hear any words at all. I don't think the President should have strangers roaming around the White House carrying firearms ... he and his family live there. But, other government buildings ... why not?

I don't think felons should be prohibited from carrying firearms.  In fact, I think that's complete bullshit. Felons probably have a greater need for self-defense than Regular Joe. If you think there's going to be a future problem with a felon ... keep their ass behind bars ... where they belong. Once they've paid what they owe, they're square with the house and should be allowed to resume their lives ... not running on some second-chance bullshit.  If they're getting a second chance ... let 'em take it in another country ... but, better to just keep 'em locked away from the rest of us.

Imagine this scenario: When anyone is scheduled to be released from prison, they are forced to purchase a firearm and required to carry it for a week before being discharged.  Think how quickly the prison culture would reform itself. -chuckle

The people with firearms who scare me the most are the ones who don't realize how dangerous they (the untrained) actually are.

Quote:I know I don't want strangers on my property carrying firearms. In fact, if you come up on my property toting, you might be surprised to find holes appearing all over yourself before you hear any words at all. I don't think the President should have strangers roaming around the White House carrying firearms ... he and his family live there. But, other government buildings ... why not?

not carrying on someone else private property makes for good manners

I believe in good manners. A very good friend of mine told me he wasn't comfortable with me carrying when I visit his house. I wonder if he found it odd that I don't visit his house at all anymore. SOB carries when he comes 

Sorry for the delayed response, Brother.  Have been (and will continue to be) too busy for the Internet of late.  Am going to try and address parts of your post.  Forgive me if I dork up the format a bit.

Quote:if posted as gun free then it should be honored.

I disagree. No one should be able to declare anywhere a gun-free zone. What goes up right behind that declaration? Same thing they have on-post. A law that will see you on your way to prison.

Quote:three shootings come to mind in government buildings, the Census Bureau in 2015,  in the capitol building around 1998 or 99, where a nut job went in and shot two capitol police, another was the in the Navy Yard in DC in 2013 i think it was. there are other at the federal, state and local levels than have happened over the years. now granted they were already gun free zones, and that didn't stop people from doing it.


Nope. It didn't stop someone from doing it.

The shipyard incident is a stand-out for me. I personally knew one of the victims. Were I to hazard a guess, that individual was the one who inspired the shooter to act.

The shipyard being a gun free zone, no one (law abiding at least) had any ability to stop the shooter as he was stalking and murdering at his leisure. I would hate to find myself in such a situation. We come from similar backgrounds being armed and expected to use force of arms if (and when) required. I never got out of that mold.  Maybe I dealt with more bad people and lost almost all trust of 'em. I don't know. But, I do know there are incredibly bad people on the streets with us and in our offices. I'm never wearing sheep's clothing again (unless it's simply a disguise).


Quote:but say someone is carrying legally or by their right, and goes down to the courthouse, county clerks offices, or any other gov building to take care of some sort of business, something happens where the government screwed him over and he goes off ( it has been known to happen, i'm sure everybody here has been down to the court house, county clerks office, DMV and been told by one of the pencils pushers some that pisses you off and nothing you can do about it)  pulls his pistol empties the magazine, reloads and empties it a second time, killing bunch of people and wounding others before he is killed or captured by who ever, be it law enforcement or another armed citizen.  wouldn't that be a good enough reason to restrict even law abiding citizens from carrying in government buildings. if before he went in was stopped at the door and told to check his weapon or take it home and secure it. after all the people working there are not all assholes their just doing a job trying to make a living, now they are dead because some nut job or sane person who went off got in with a firearm.


That's a good argument. The flaw in it is that that same scenario could play out in Walmart or Krogers or anywhere.  No reason a government office should be 'protected' from a member of the public who is tired of being screwed over and then treated like a schmuck by some tax-payer funded ass-wipe.

And remember, your perp carrying in a pistol with high capacity mags is a lot easier to deal with than the guy who calmly walks out to his car, dons his tactical gear, and comes back armed with a rifle AND a pistol. Worse yet, if he were to come back with a couple of sympathetic friends.


Quote:on the convicted felon deal ... they have already shown they're not above using a weapon on someone

a gun is much easier to use than most of them other than a car, the others you have to get up close and personal. a car and firearm not so much.

I think we decide too easily that someone is a felon. As you've described above, there's no just cause for releasing a menace to society from prison. Once we've spent all the effort incarcerating these types ... it's just better to throw away the key.  They made their bed, now let 'em sleep in it.

OTOH, if I carry my firearm concealed into the commissary with no intention whatsoever of using it ... if caught ... you know they'll put me behind bars for five years and strip me of my rights.  And ... for what? Nothing? Not abiding by (what I consider) an arbitrary rule that makes other people 'feel' safer? There's no difference in me, as a person, who walked through those commissary doors with a badge and a gun twenty years ago ... as opposed to the guy whose badge has been retired from circulation and replaced with a LEOSA license.

And, we don't keep the car keys away from the released felon either. You probably brought that up knowing how much more dangerous a vehicle is compared to a tiny li'l ol' pistola.  minusculebiggrin
Reply
#6
From what I understand a huge majority of felons are felons for drug possession and not being violent. I wonder with legal weed how many could potentially get their status changed? The war on drugs made more felons then it did eliminate or deter addicts, pot smokers, or dealers. It is a big waste of money, all that cash could have been better spent in rehabilitation and legalizing and regulating all drugs like they did in Portugal ??
Reply
#7
I absolutely DO believe that private property owners should be able to ban gun carry on their own property. It's their place, they make the rules. I don't have to go onto it if I don't like their rules. Several stores and restaurants have missed out on getting my money for that very reason. They can ban carry if they like, and I can just go to another store or restaurant if I don't like their rules on their place.

Public buildings are a different matter. WE pay for those buildings, they belong to US, and no one should be able to tell us how to enter our own premises. Every time I go into a court house, I see armed deputies running all over the building. If they can carry there, there is no reason I should not be allowed to. I'm at least as safe to carry as they are, and in most cases safer. During our yearly re-quals with our sidearms, we had to shoot 80% or better on a modified FBI day/night course to qualify, and cops were only required to shoot 70% or better. I regularly shot 94-96%, a tad better on the night fire than the day fire - I dunno why that was. I actually got permission from the US Marshals to carry in a Federal court house - and it was their idea, not mine. That permission has lapsed now, but there ain't a Federal courthouse for 100 miles in any direction from here, so it don't bother me.

"Felons" should not lose their citizenship rights beyond their prison stay. There is no profit in stripping a person of their rights and then turning them loose on society after they have to swallow that bitter pill. Once their debt is paid, it's paid, done, over with. If they are not safe enough to carry a gun, they are not safe enough to carry a crowbar or screwdriver, either - and therefore they are not safe enough to turn loose amongst decent folks. If they are a danger, keep them in lockdown or execute them. If they are safe enough to turn loose, they are safe enough to exercise their rights.

There used to be a business in Kansas City, MO, that hired ONLY ex-felons, just down at the end of the block I lived on. Nearly everyone in my building was an ex-felon, and lived there because it was within walking distance to their jobs at that place. I never had any trouble out of any of them. I had more trouble out of wannabe gangstas who'd never even seen the inside of a prison than I had out of those scary, scary felons.

There are people in this world who fear the dark itself more than they should fear what is in it.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)