Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Hoorah for the 6th USCC of Appeals - RKBA relief from disabilities

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623

    Hoorah for the 6th USCC of Appeals - RKBA relief from disabilities

    Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

    In the first legal ruling of its type, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Thursday deemed unconstitutional a federal law that kept a Michigan man who was briefly committed to a mental institution decades ago from owning a gun.

    A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

    According to Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.

    Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they’re fit to own guns.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-18-2014 at 05:14 PM. Reason: Formatting
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    everyone should read the opinion .. its shows the idiocy of the courts in respect to the made up notion of the levels of scrutiny.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    everyone should read the opinion .. its shows the idiocy of the courts in respect to the made up notion of the levels of scrutiny.
    We work within the system we have, making every effort to improve it.

    This decision IMHO blows the door wide open to other challenges.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

    In the first legal ruling of its type, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Thursday deemed unconstitutional a federal law that kept a Michigan man who was briefly committed to a mental institution decades ago from owning a gun.

    A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

    According to Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.

    Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they’re fit to own guns.
    A victory for the 2nd Amendment as it does not place any restrictions.

    With that said, I have pause to seriously mentally ill folks being armed. Not that they couldn't get guns indirectly anyway.

    A double edged sword for sure.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    A victory for the 2nd Amendment as it does not place any restrictions.

    With that said, I have pause to seriously mentally ill folks being armed. Not that they couldn't get guns indirectly anyway.

    A double edged sword for sure.
    Not quite true.

    The ruling in this case was because there was no legitimate state procedure to which the man could apply. Most states have something I believe. Had the man lived in one of those states he/we would not have gotten this ruling - at least not so dramatically.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Not quite true.

    The ruling in this case was because there was no legitimate state procedure to which the man could apply. Most states have something I believe. Had the man lived in one of those states he/we would not have gotten this ruling - at least not so dramatically.
    The text of the 2nd Amendment states:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    What part of "shall not be infringed" did I get wrong?

    Supreme Court communist rulings or not.

    Personally, I interpret the words of the Constitution as I do The Good Word. Literally.

    Lest we forget, an un-Constitional law is null and void from the beginning.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    We work within the system we have, making every effort to improve it.

    This decision IMHO blows the door wide open to other challenges.
    I don't think that this decision will do actually much other than to expose the idiocy of the judicial system.

    Of course, there are many "systems" ... I think improvement in many of them can be achieved, some by methods that are not too pleasant.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    The text of the 2nd Amendment states:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    What part of "shall not be infringed" did I get wrong?

    Supreme Court communist rulings or not.

    Personally, I interpret the words of the Constitution as I do The Good Word. Literally.

    Lest we forget, an un-Constitional law is null and void from the beginning.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't think that this decision will do actually much other than to expose the idiocy of the judicial system.

    Of course, there are many "systems" ... I think improvement in many of them can be achieved, some by methods that are not too pleasant.
    Who determines whether a law in un-Constituional...each one of us individually for ourselves? Nay, nay - that is the responsibility of our court system, the judicial branch.

    Cease alluding to rebellion (you do so by inference)...."methods not so pleasant" is poorly veiled.

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post

    With that said, I have pause to seriously mentally ill folks being armed. Not that they couldn't get guns indirectly anyway.
    .
    You did not actually READ the opinion I assume?

  10. #10
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You did not actually READ the opinion I assume?
    This is what I READ:

    A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

    Any other ?s
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    This is what I READ:

    A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

    Any other ?s
    Uhhhh, yeah...that it was like a zillion years ago and that it was in response to an acute tragedy in the guy's life?

    My motto is : if ya ain't crazy, here's your gun.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You did not actually READ the opinion I assume?
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    This is what I READ:

    A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

    Any other ?s
    You obviously did not read the entire opinion or choose to selectively quote giving a false impression of what was said and what it means.

    So which is it?
    1. You didn't read it all.
    2. You read it, but don't understand it
    3. You are going to hang your hat on an out of context quote, ignoring the rest.


    Since you apparently missed the link in the OP by not clicking on deemed unconstitutional
    here is another doorway for you: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...4a0296p-06.pdf

    Read the document........then comment.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-18-2014 at 10:34 PM. Reason: Added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Who determines whether a law in un-Constituional...each one of us individually for ourselves? Nay, nay - that is the responsibility of our court system, the judicial branch.
    The Constitution determines it. When you try to change the meaning of the english language, what is that? Try looking up the meaning of the word infringed as defined in the late 1700's.

    What do you find?

    The Supreme Court CANNOT change the Constitution or the meaning of words in the english language. Words of art excluded.

    In my opinion, that line of thinking in this regard is flawed and is complicit with the people who think the Constitution is a "living breathing document" that should change with the times.

    Read the words as written and don't try to interpret or change the english language. The words were chosen very carefully.

    So, again, any law written that contradicts the Constitution in null and void. Period.

    That includes flawed Supreme Court rulings. If anyone thinks that the Supreme Court is perfect and can't make a flawed ruling, that thinking is flawed. Dangerously flawed.

    What would happen if all the conservative justices were killed in a terrorist attack and a left wing radical liberal president and congress appoints all far far left leaning radically liberal justices.

    Now tell me the Supreme Court is the final word and can Fundamentally Change The Constitution!

    Nay Nay Nay
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 12-18-2014 at 10:46 PM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Our court system? Nay nay...if true then the courts would never have opposing opinions.

    The constitution's words define the constitution quite well.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    The Constitution determines it. When you try to change the meaning of the english language, what is that? Try looking up the meaning of the word infringed as defined in the late 1700's.

    What do you find?

    The Supreme Court CANNOT change the Constitution or the meaning of words in the english language. Words of art excluded.

    In my opinion, that line of thinking in this regard is flawed and is complicit with the people who think the Constitution is a "living breathing document" that should change with the times.

    Read the words as written and don't try to interpret or change the english language. The words were chosen very carefully.

    So, again, any law written that contradicts the Constitution in null and void. Period.

    That includes flawed Supreme Court rulings. If anyone thinks that the Supreme Court is perfect and can't make a flawed ruling, that thinking is flawed. Dangerously flawed.

    What would happen if all the conservative justices were killed in a terrorist attack and a left wing radical liberal president and congress appoints all far far left leaning radically liberal justices.

    Now tell me the Supreme Court is the final word and can Fundamentally Change The Constitution!

    Nay Nay Nay
    I agree that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document.

    Not being an alive entity capable of hearing and speaking for itself, we must rely on others to give it voice. The Founding Fathers directed how that should be done and it is not for you....or me....individually to be the arbitrator/decider of fact - to tell others what is intended.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I agree that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document.

    Not being an alive entity capable of hearing and speaking for itself, we must rely on others to give it voice. The Founding Fathers directed how that should be done and it is not for you....or me....individually to be the arbitrator/decider of fact - to tell others what is intended.
    Others? You mean gov't officials to make the determination? Oh boy, you know what you get from that ...

    Instead WE decide what laws are constitutional via our activities as jurists and our ability to nullify.

  17. #17
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You obviously did not read the entire opinion or choose to selectively quote giving a false impression of what was said and what it means.

    So which is it?
    1. You didn't read it all.
    2. You read it, but don't understand it
    3. You are going to hang your hat on an out of context quote, ignoring the rest.


    Since you apparently missed the link in the OP by not clicking on deemed unconstitutional
    here is another doorway for you: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...4a0296p-06.pdf

    Read the document........then comment.
    No thanks. I stand by my comments.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  18. #18
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I agree that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document.

    Not being an alive entity capable of hearing and speaking for itself, we must rely on others to give it voice. The Founding Fathers directed how that should be done and it is not for you....or me....individually to be the arbitrator/decider of fact - to tell others what is intended.
    Pray tell what the founders wrote in this regard.

    I will give you a hint Article V

    The Supreme Court has overstepped it's bounds since Chief Justice Marshall gave the court authority in Marbury v Madison unilaterally and without authority to do so.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  19. #19
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Others? You mean gov't officials to make the determination? Oh boy, you know what you get from that ...

    Instead WE decide what laws are constitutional via our activities as jurists and our ability to nullify.
    Nullification and reining in an out of control Supreme Court is what needs to happen. They are not gods to rule who lives or dies, or who wins or loses.

    Case in point Roe v Wade. The legal murder of unborn children. I guess they forgot about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness on that ruling.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Others? You mean gov't officials to make the determination? Oh boy, you know what you get from that ...

    Instead WE decide what laws are constitutional via our activities as jurists and our ability to nullify.
    And the English language and the extremely carefully chosen words of the Constitution are meaningless.

    We need some wing nut to tell us what words mean now?

    Sounds like Common Core where 2+2=5 if you have a good explanation as to why.

    Absurd!!!!!
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Well then it is apparently time to remind folks here of a very serious form rule.

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    Having taken a soft approach earlier, I sincerely hope that more stringent means will not be necessary.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Well then it is apparently time to remind folks here of a very serious form rule.

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    Having taken a soft approach earlier, I sincerely hope that more stringent means will not be necessary.
    Just exactly who is advocating any illegal acts here?

    Maybe you just don't like what is being said?
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Just exactly who is advocating any illegal acts here?

    Maybe you just don't like what is being said?
    Sigh - As you wish.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sigh - As you wish.
    Maybe you should do your own research on the history of the Supreme Court and what gives them authority to interpret the Constitution.. Please show me where you get your information. Better yet cite the law that gives them the authority.

    And, having an opinion is not against forum rules.

    If I think a mentally defective person should maybe not have a firearm, that is wrong to say?

    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 12-19-2014 at 12:17 AM. Reason: clarity
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Maybe you should do your own research on the history of the Supreme Court and what gives them authority to interpret the Constitution.. Please show me where you get your information. Better yet cite the law that gives them the authority.

    And, having an opinion is not against forum rules.

    If I think a mentally defective person should maybe not have a firearm, that is wrong to say?

    The libs will just say that anyone who even wants a gun has some mental defect....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •