21
   

NRA Releases Anti-Obama Ads

 
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Many California cities limit the numbers of pets allowed in residential households. And dangerous animal ordininaces? They are also here, and many include dogs such as pit bulls, rotweilers, dobermans, and german sheperds.

I don't think any are down to one dog yet (the reason for the wink), but just give us time. This is, after all, California...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 03:17 pm
@A Lone Voice,
I observed that Cruikshank and Presser were both cases in which the Court noted that the second amendment binds the Federal government and not the states. That was my point. If you want to piss all over yourself about who is or isn't being "disarmed," help yourself. Presser didn't involve disarming anyone, it was a case of the state having prohibited Mr. Presser from organizing a socialist militia privately and in contravention of state law. Mr. Presser appealed, and the Court found that Illinois' militia ordinance was constitutional. You really just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Perhaps you could quote that portion of Heller which "decides jurisdiction." I've already noted that Heller prevents a universal ban on the owning of firearms. For the rest of it, you can rant and fulminate to your heart's content, you're not arguing with me, because i haven't addressed those issues.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 10:27 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

I observed that Cruikshank and Presser were both cases in which the Court noted that the second amendment binds the Federal government and not the states. That was my point. If you want to piss all over yourself about who is or isn't being "disarmed," help yourself. Presser didn't involve disarming anyone, it was a case of the state having prohibited Mr. Presser from organizing a socialist militia privately and in contravention of state law. Mr. Presser appealed, and the Court found that Illinois' militia ordinance was constitutional. You really just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Perhaps you could quote that portion of Heller which "decides jurisdiction." I've already noted that Heller prevents a universal ban on the owning of firearms. For the rest of it, you can rant and fulminate to your heart's content, you're not arguing with me, because i haven't addressed those issues.


You're trying to hang an entire argument on prior cases where the court used precedence in their rulings, yet you fail, or refuse to recognize, that Heller once again has set significant precedence in 2nd Amendment cases.

That is not only short sighted, it is disingenuous and lazy thinking.

Presser didn't even involve a firearm, if you were aware? But it did involve a weapon. Clue: What he was armed with is sharper than you, sparky.

You're reading the Heller dissensions, maybe? A universal ban on the owning of firearms? Is this the spin Brady is using in fundraising now? Laughing

Heller was most noteworthy for its acknowledgement of an individual's 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm, putting the militia nonsense to rest once and for all.

This case will be used as precedence when a similar case from the state level comes before the court, and it will apply just not in DC, but in every state.

Unless, of course, Obama is able to appoint enough justices in the next couple of years to alter the current makeup of the court.

Good luck, Skippy.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:14 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The fourteenth amendment does not directly extend any of the amendments among the first ten (commonly referred to as the bill of rights) to the states. Inferentially, any right of the individual guaranteed within those amendments which is a right of due process becomes guaranteed to individuals in their dealings with the several states. For the fourteenth amendment to cause the states to be bound by the second amendment, it would be necessary for a litigant to demonstrate that the second amendment acts to assure due process of law, and that therefore, the states are bound by the fourteenth amendment to assure that due process. Good luck making that case.


There is a due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

But there is also this clause:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"




Setanta wrote:
I seriously doubt that the Court will negate the statements in Cruikshank and Presser in the near or the distant future. They had the opportunity in Heller, and yet explicitly pointed out that their ruling in Heller was not contradictory to the precedents in Cruikshank, Presser and Miller. So in fact, what you dream of would actually constitute a reversal of the court's ruling in Heller.


We'll see.

Nordyke v King (now Nordyke v Alameda) has already had oral arguments before the appeals court:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=18_19&products_id=283468-2&tID=5


And the Heller legal team is also pursuing their own case against Chicago.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 04:11 am
In HELLER the USSC held that:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central
to the Second Amendment right.

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class
of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society
for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute."

[emphasis added by David]

From this language, it is clear to me that the USSC will apply
the protection of the Bill of Rights to citizens who wish to defend themselves
in the public streets of America, as well as in the home,
inasmuch as there is nothing in the text of the Amendment limiting it to the home
and there were NO police extant in the 1700s to upon which any citizen coud rely
to defend him in the streets. Obviously, it was the Authors intendment
that each citizen attend to his own defense and have the freedom to do so.

I am very pleased to see the Court taking cognizance of the need
to defend PROPERTY -- not merely life itself.
David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 05:45 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The fourteenth amendment does not directly extend any of the amendments among the first ten (commonly referred to as the bill of rights) to the states. Inferentially, any right of the individual guaranteed within those amendments which is a right of due process becomes guaranteed to individuals in their dealings with the several states. For the fourteenth amendment to cause the states to be bound by the second amendment, it would be necessary for a litigant to demonstrate that the second amendment acts to assure due process of law, and that therefore, the states are bound by the fourteenth amendment to assure that due process. Good luck making that case.


There is a due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

But there is also this clause:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"




Setanta wrote:
I seriously doubt that the Court will negate the statements in Cruikshank and Presser in the near or the distant future. They had the opportunity in Heller, and yet explicitly pointed out that their ruling in Heller was not contradictory to the precedents in Cruikshank, Presser and Miller. So in fact, what you dream of would actually constitute a reversal of the court's ruling in Heller.


We'll see.

Nordyke v King (now Nordyke v Alameda) has already had oral arguments before the appeals court:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=18_19&products_id=283468-2&tID=5


Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules the Second Amendment is binding on state and local governments via Fourteenth Amendment incorporation:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 07:10 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules the Second Amendment is binding on state and local governments via Fourteenth Amendment incorporation:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf


"The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 07:27 am
@oralloy,
You kind of left our part of that ruling oralloy. While the 2nd applies the court said the county CAN make restrictions on guns

Quote:
[20] The third prong of the O’Brien test simply repeats the
threshold inquiry of whether the statute is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression, which we addressed above.
We therefore move on to the final, fourth prong: that the
restriction be no greater than necessary. The Nordykes argue
that there are other, less restrictive ways the County could
reduce gun violence, such as by using metal detectors. But
how would metal detectors prevent gun violence on County
property unless County officials could confiscate the guns that
those devices discovered? And County officials could not
confiscate the weapons or turn away armed visitors unless it
were illegal to bring firearms on County property. The County
thought it dangerous for people to wander around its property
armed. To ban or strictly to regulate gun possession on
County land is the only straightforward response to such a
danger.
4506 NORDYKE v. KING
[21] We conclude that the Ordinance passes the O’Brien
test as applied to the Nordykes’ gun shows. The district court
properly granted summary judgment to the County on this
claim.

The ruling undermines your argument oralloy rather than supports it.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 01:54 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
You kind of left out part of that ruling oralloy. While the 2nd applies the court said the county CAN make restrictions on guns

Quote:
[20] The third prong of the O’Brien test simply repeats the
threshold inquiry of whether the statute is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression, which we addressed above.
We therefore move on to the final, fourth prong: that the
restriction be no greater than necessary. The Nordykes argue
that there are other, less restrictive ways the County could
reduce gun violence, such as by using metal detectors. But
how would metal detectors prevent gun violence on County
property unless County officials could confiscate the guns that
those devices discovered? And County officials could not
confiscate the weapons or turn away armed visitors unless it
were illegal to bring firearms on County property. The County
thought it dangerous for people to wander around its property
armed. To ban or strictly to regulate gun possession on
County land is the only straightforward response to such a
danger.
4506 NORDYKE v. KING
[21] We conclude that the Ordinance passes the O’Brien
test as applied to the Nordykes’ gun shows. The district court
properly granted summary judgment to the County on this
claim.


That is nothing new. They are just rehashing Heller in that part.

The key to the ruling was the part that binds state and local governments (at least within the 9th Circuit) to the Heller ruling.

All those state and local assault weapons bans are on borrowed time now. The end is in sight.



parados wrote:
The ruling undermines your argument oralloy rather than supports it.


What argument of mine does it supposedly undermine?

Certainly not my position that the Second Amendment is destined for Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 02:28 am
@parados,
Since Paradox doesn't read anything other than Socialist Propaganda, he would not know that there is a movement in Montana and Utah to assert States Rights regarding possession of firearms.

The federal government's vise grip on firearms and ammunition stems from the usage of the "commerce clause" which has been interpreted by left wing judges to mean that the federal government can legislate and control anything which crosses state lines.

Some states are examining the idea that if they manufactured firearms and ammunition in their state and restricted the use of those firearms and ammunition by fiat to an area bounded by their state lines, the federal government would have no control of the manufcture and legal use of firearms in their state.

We shall see/
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 04:02 am
@parados,
parados wrote:


Quote:
You kind of left our part of that ruling oralloy.
While the 2nd applies the court said the county CAN make restrictions on guns

Technically, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about anything being sold on anyone else 's property,
nor about whether a government must lease its property for sales on a non-discriminatory basis.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 04:06 am
I 'd love to see incorporation by the USSC by its repudiating
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
and the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 04:11 am
@OmSigDAVID,
ERRATUM:

This post shoud appear as follows
(not as set forth above):




parados wrote:
Quote:
You kind of left our part of that ruling oralloy.
While the 2nd applies the court said the county CAN make restrictions on guns

Technically, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about anything being sold on anyone else 's property,
nor about whether a government must lease its property for sales on a non-discriminatory basis.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 04:18 am

By the terms of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963),
the USSC has held that any FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
in the Bll of Rights is applied to curtail the power of the states by the 14th Amendment.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 11:08 pm
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
INCORPORATES THE 2nd AMENDMENT to CURTAIL THE POWER OF NY STATE.

In the case of JOSEPH L. COLAIACOVO v. Richard DORMER,
as the statutorily designated handgun licensing officer,
and as the Police Commissioner of the County of Suffolk,
the Court held the following, inter alia:

"The Petitioner was possessed of a pistol permit with a sportsman
endorsement that was issued on June 7, 2005 and was not due
to expire until June 1, 2010. On March 7, 2008 the Respondent
revoked the Petitioner’s pistol permit altogether based upon
circumstances surrounding the death of Petitioner’s wife which
was found to be a suicide. Apparently, the Respondent determined
that the Petitioner’s failure to keep his weapon in a locked safe or
otherwise inoperable was an unspecified rule violation. Respondent
terminated the Petitioner’s license to possess a weapon predicated
upon this alleged failure.

Thereafter, the Respondent modified this determination so as to
permit the Petitioner to possess a pistol in his dwelling,
but without the sportsman endorsement, which would
allow him to possess the pistol outside the home.

"The Supreme Court of the United States rendered its determination
in District of Columbia v. Heller on June 26, 2008 ___US ___,
128 S.Ct. 2783. In HELLER the Court held that there is a personal
right to bear arms that is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the
Constitution.
The Court further held that requirements that a handgun
be rendered inoperable, or locked in such a manner so that it is not
immediately accessible when possessed in the owner’s dwelling also
transgresses upon this right to bear arms, because the 2nd Amendment
recognizes that the right to bear arms includes a corollary right to self defense.


. . . In view of HELLER there is a question as to whether the Petitioner’s
conduct relative to properly safeguarding his handgun was within the
bounds of his constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights.
If the Petitioner acted in a manner consistent with his existing constitutional
rights relative to the care and safeguarding of his pistol, the State of
New York may not diminish such other rights
as he may otherwise possess
or have been previously granted solely on the basis that some provision of
State law or rule dictates that he behave differently in derogation of his
2nd Amendment rights. Simply put, the State of New York and its agencies
are no longer in a position to require that a handgun be stored in an
inoperable condition or otherwise locked up if it is otherwise legally present
in the owner’s dwelling.


Footnote:
. . . The Court in HELLER did not create a new right,
it only interpreted the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and
the rights it recognized at the time it was ratified by the States.
It can be said that the HELLER decision did, for the first time,
make a clear statement of each citizen’s 2nd Amendment rights. . . .

This shall constitute the decision and order of the court."

[All emphasis is added by David]

So far as I am aware, this holding has not been appealed.
The case was remanded for the Police Dept. to inquire into
the facts to see whether Petitioner COLAIACOVO
went beyond his 2nd Amendment rights as set forth by the USSC in HELLER.

Hence, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not alone
in holding that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated
to apply against the powers of the State governments
and in favor of each citizen 's personal freedom of self defense.

This reminds me of the collapse of communism,
when we saw it crumbling, and picking up momentum
on the way down into the cesspool of history.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 11:22 pm

Nazism, communism, and government control of citizen 's gun possession
can all lie cheek by jowl together at the bottom of the cesspool of history,
while American citizens live in personal freedom.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:36 pm
9th Circuit to hear Nordyke en banc:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/31guns.html

http://cbs5.com/local/gun.show.ban.2.1107513.html
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:16 pm
i am not suprised, but it seems that the gun nuts have used Obama successfully in their power play. These guys and gals at the NRA are GOOD!

Quote:
Fearing Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws
By IAN URBINA
Published: February 23, 2010
. When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.

And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24guns.html?hp
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
i am not suprised, but it seems that the gun nuts
have used Obama successfully in their power play.
These guys and gals at the NRA are GOOD!
Hawkeye, what is your reasoning in calling us nuts?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:57 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Hawkeye, what is your reasoning in calling us nuts?


It is said with fondness, as in "uncle Cal is a gun nut" , he being a family member who dragged me out to his barn one day to show me a hanging deer with lots of points that he was thrilled to have killed the day before.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2019 at 09:05:22