• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Petition to White House to rescind New Jersey gun laws

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

-derhammer
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

-derhammer

1. Sugar, it's the internet. The "treatment" you received was pretty tame, considering. This isn't kindergarten, and some don't play nice. You just gotta deal with it, and if you want respect and courtesy, extend it, regardless.

2. Your intentions were commendable, and I think with a little education you could put that desire into more productive action. The key is to learn as much as you can before you start walking the plank. Carsontech provided you some very good information; I suggest you start there.

3. You're still new here, so you have to understand that for some of the more regular members, it can be frustrating when newbs repeatedly pop up and spout off inaccurate information, and resist when any attempts at correction are made. We also get some antis and trolls, so new members are subject to some scrutiny until they've become familiar with the forum and its residents.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

-derhammer

No big deal; we all have a lot to learn.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I just don't understand the way I've been treated here. Okay, I screwed up the legal precedent on this one. Yeah, there ARE actually some things I don't know about the government and Constitutional law. Fair enough, but at least I was trying to do something for the Second Amendment cause. I have no problem with it being explained to me that I made a mistake, and that's fine - forget the whole endeavor, because I messed up on this one. What I don't understand is why I have to be treated with such rudeness and sarcasm. I made a mistake, but I was trying to do the right thing here, so I think I could have been treated with a little more courtesy. That's all I'm saying.

-derhammer

While I would not be upset to see this thread put to rest, I think there needs to be air-clearing before we turn off the lights.

Eagerness and earnestness are great things, but .... And you all know when somebody says "X X X, but ..." that a hammer, or at least a shoe is going to drop. So here's the object being dropped -

If you go around advocating for something that physically cannot happen, or encourages one arm of government to blatantly violate both the law, the philosophical foundations upon which our government and country were founded, and The Rule of Law (go look up what it means when it's given as a proper name) then not only will you be greeted negatively by the side you thought you were supporting, but by the oposition as well. In this case the antis will have a field day pointing their fingers and saying things like "Those bozos don't even know how government works. I guess we can use that to stick another control on them."

On a personal note - you were given many chances to go look up/review/refresh you understanding of the federal executive branch and how in interacts with all three branches of State government. You declined those opportunities and demanded that we accept your point of view. That is very much like how the hippies operated - but saying so was actually an invitation for you to consider either citing facts (as opposed to emotions/feelings/wishes) in support of your position or reevaluating it. You declined the invitation.

I triple double dirty dog dare you to show one example of anybody actually engaging in name-calling or insulting you.

In closing I want you to know that I personally like and try to encourage enthusiasm and eagerness and earnestness such as yours. I also try to make sure that those traits do not end up feeding ammunition to the antis - and as much as you will most likely claim it was never your intention to do that, you did.

I invite you to figure out a way of achieving change in NJ's gun laws that might actually have even the proverbial snowball's chance of being effective. As little as it might be, it still is some chance, as opposed to your previous effort.

stay safe.
 

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
@skidmark: I thank you for your evaluation and I must admit I am in agreement with it. I should have looked up the law/court precedents instead of continuing to argue. I will say that comparing my speech to hippie-speak and insinuating that I missed civics class, at least in the way it appeared/I took it over the internet, does come across as name-calling, though indirect. However, I do understand how the internet is and that I screwed up on this one. Once again, I think your assessment is correct, I admit my mistake, but I will not express apologies or regret as that is useless - instead I will say that, in the future, I will consider more thoughtfully the words of those here more experienced than I, instead of presuming that I know more then they do.

I agree this thread should probably be deleted just so anti's cannot presume to use my mistake and misinterpretation of Constitutional law as ammo against ALL Second Amendment activists.

-derhammer
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
See no reason to delete a thread that turns out so well. Education of user/members is as important as that of the general public. The problem that's more difficult to avoid is that of the written word not containing the support of tone of voice, body language and facial expression. All in all IMHO you all have done well in reaching a good understanding.

We are on the same team (brothers all) and do offer help to each other when and where the need is perceived.

Thanks to all for proving once again the OCDO can and will work together.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
It's too late to delete anything - once it goes on the internet it's pretty much always there.

Please do not presume that just because someone is older than you, or has been on a forum longer than you, that they are always correct or know more than you. (Although in this case it turns out we all were.:D)

No apology needed - all I was looking for was some learning to take place. Maybe next time you won't require the rest of us to use a 2x4 up side your head to make that happen.

stay safe.
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
Hmmm...let's see I can make this clear enough for you to understand:

THE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WERE ONLY EVER INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND DO NOT APPLY TO THE STATES EXCEPT IN THOSE SPECIFIC CASES IN WHICH SCOTUS SAYS THEY DO.


Can a state take away your 4th Amendment rights?
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Can a state take away your 4th Amendment rights?

Not anymore. However, under the design of the Founders, the federal constitution only applied to the federal government. States were to be laboratories of democracy, with different policies being experimented with, and the best winning out.

Amendment IV

Unreasonable search and seizure

  • This right has been incorporated against the states, along with the remedy of exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence, by the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In Mapp, the Court overruled Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), in which the Court had ruled that while the Fourth Amendment applied to the states (meaning that they were bound not to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures), the exclusionary rule did not (meaning that they were free to fashion other remedies for criminal defendants whose possessions had been illegally seized by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment).
Warrant requirements

  • The various warrant requirements have been incorporated against the states. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).
  • The standards for judging whether a search or seizure undertaken without a warrant was "unreasonable" also have been incorporated against the states. See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).

And, as OC for ME pointed out, it all depends on a court's definition of unreasonable.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Not anymore.

They went and changed the notion of a central federal government coordinating with individual State governments after that little kerfuffle in the middle of the 19th century. And just to make sure everybody understood what they did, they tacked this onto the Constitution.* **

AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

stay safe.

* You really ought to read the parts I snipped, if for no other reason than to see how winners get to treat losers.

** SCOTUS has a long and sordid history of deciding that only certain Amendments, and then sometimes only parts of Amendments, apply to the States. Recall, if you will, how long it took them to get around to deciding that 2A applied to te states, while still continuing the notion of "reasonable restrictions" on the one out of 27 that actually says "shall not be infringed".
 
Top