Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

I want to make sure everyone following the news now is aware of this:

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Will Beararms, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. GunHo198


    Oct 7, 2004
    I know this Hot girl that has had about 18 partners in the past year, both male and female. She says she just can't find a suitable partner as there all idiots.

    So if 1 person can't find love in 18 partners, who's the idiot?

    What I'm saying here is, your the one who can't comprehend what everyone else is saying.

    People in Law Enforcement with thick heads like this is what puts Us vs Them into context.

    And they wonder why over 27 firearms distributors are boycotting sales to LEO's in the Obamanist States of America!?..

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  2. xxlrx


    Aug 1, 2003
    Good job on the "common use" argument from Miller. I think, given the current membership of SCOTUS and the millions of AR-15s purchased in the last few months, this would be the lynch pin for the unconstitutionality of a future all-out AWB.

  3. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)
    I would also say since Miller gave us the ruling that didn't protect short barrel shotguns, that that ruling, then could also be expanded to cover assault weapons.


    From the same article you cherry picked to present that argument

    " Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[74][75]

    The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional.[75] The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states:

    Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.[76]

    Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."[74] "
  4. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    I didnt cherry pick. I quoted the RULING. Not some article. You seem to have added to the ruling in Heller. Here is the ruling in its entirety. Please show me where machine guns are talked about.

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
  5. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)
    #74, would be "Adam Winkler: The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right". Huffington Post. 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-02-01.
    #75, Liptak, Adam (18 December 2012). "Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
    #76, ''District of Columbia v. Heller''". Retrieved 2010-08-30.
  6. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)
    The validity of the argument, is not made by the number of people who agree with it.

    Lots of people thought re-electing Obama was a great idea.
  7. xxlrx


    Aug 1, 2003
    So if 1 person can't find love in 18 partners, who's the idiot?

    What I'm saying here is, your the one who can't comprehend what everyone else is saying.

    The validity of the argument, is not made by the number of people who agree with it.

    This reminds me of an ex-girlfriend from long ago. Her instinctive response to a disagreement was emotional. She would stake out a position and then never come off it no matter what. A lack of reason, personal attacks, and lashing out was her stock in trade.

    An easy and compelling tactic was reducing the argument to the absurd. Once, she was determined to argue that the use firearms for self-defense was never advisable. I started with the simple situation of her using a gun to end a burglary and took it out to the point of burglars raping and murdering an entire family in front of her. If she could prevent such actions with a gun would she? Sure enough, she wouldn't budge. Usually, rational thought would kick in after a day or two and she would come to her senses and see the light. This gun argument was so visceral though, I don't think she ever recovered from it. She still thinks it's better to be raped and murdered than to defend herself, as far as I know.

    We may have come to a point where the Nazi argument is useful and proves a valid point. For some, it's not about truth--it's about not looking like a fool. Sadly, that's when foolishness is the most likely outcome.

    The best that can come from a situation like this is not to convince an individual of the error of his ways. The best that can come is everyone who sees it is convinced of the absurdity of the position and moves forward from there.
  8. jim7777b

    jim7777b E9 USN Ret Millennium Member

    Feb 2, 1999
    So did the President...:tempted:
  9. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    May 4, 2003
    Sorry, Sergeant. You've painted yourself into this corner.

    You've been given four examples of things that were explicitly held as Constitutional by the people you yourself said were the authorities.

    Here they are again, so no one needs to flip a page. Each was law, passed, signed and upheld:
    1. the Runaway Slave Act?
    2. Executive Order 9066 authorizing the removal of Japanese American citizens to internment camps?
    3. the 1861 suspension of writ of Habeas Corpus?
    4. Segregation Laws in Birmingham, Alabama circa May 1963?

    You said
    So whatchya gonna do?
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
  10. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    Hey, hundreds of thousands of police officers, only obeying and enforcing the laws they personally decide were constitutionally passed and legal under the Constitution.

    What could possibly go wrong? :dunno:
  11. hsprincipal


    Nov 19, 2011
    What's the difference in not enforcing gun laws and not enforcing immigration laws? Obama has set the example. He chooses which laws get enforced and which don't. Should he resign too?

    Both the President and law enforcement took an oath. Shouldn't both be true to that oath? Can't have it both ways.....
  12. NMG26


    Jul 24, 2010
    Don't they ask them in the interviewing process if they will enforce laws they don't agree with?

    I'd think that would be an interview question. "Are their any laws you disagree with"?
  13. fg17


    Oct 25, 2012
    AGREE, Give me a break with the Nazi comparisons. Besides if Germany would have won the war a lot of people in this country would have been put on trial for war crimes. People do the victims of real atrocties a disservice when they compare what happened to them and a few little gun laws that might go through.
  14. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    Jan 3, 2010
    S FL
    And what happens when they decide one of the laws we want to be enforced is not Constitutional......
  15. fg17


    Oct 25, 2012
    I understand this is an intense issue. I was in the military and know about not following unjust orders. but I think AK is technically correct. A few years ago my state got open carry without a permit and ccw with a permit. I was talking to a local police officer and he said he did not care about the law and anyone he saw with a gun on he woud put on the gound until he new what was going on and then give them at the least a dissorderly conduct ticket. I guess he thought he was doing what was right:whistling:
    Also I understand following your priciples, a few times I have said the job be darned and did what I thought was right. On the other hand I have a family to feed and they cant eat my principles.
  16. oldman11


    Mar 1, 2012
    Your buddy is very afraid of guns and/or he wants to play bada**. The fact is that true Americans will stand up and support the COTUS (including the 2nd Amendment). That includes military and police. Some of them will not, due to fear, or brainwashed, or money, or dislike of the American liberties; and the biggest one.....The need to control other people. Usually due to their own inadequacies.
  17. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)

    Sigh. Again with the invalid comparisons?

    Is that truly the best you can do? To re state tired arguments that are nothing like the situation being discussed?
  18. *ASH*


    Jan 12, 2008
    seriously !!! 8 pages and still going . :upeyes: im super serial !!!! 8 pages . well hell when it reaches that count number its usually time for this ...


  19. sheriff733

    sheriff733 NRA LIFE MEMBER

    Nov 4, 2007
  20. BamaTrooper

    BamaTrooper Retired

    Sep 12, 2006
    Can they prioritize? You know, violent felonies over felonies over misdemeanor over violation?