• 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.

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

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
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?
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
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?

:banghead:
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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?

:banghead:

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

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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?

:banghead:
When you take an out of context quote and make it appear to say something other than the decison I posted says - yes, it against forum rules.

(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!

If you feel that is somehow not applicable, understand that is it my obligation to make such called decisions.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
When you take an out of context quote and make it appear to say something other than the decison I posted says - yes, it against forum rules.

(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!

If you feel that is somehow not applicable, understand that is it my obligation to make such called decisions.

OK. Please explain your decision and how you came to the conclusion because I still don't get it.

I do not see where I edited your quoted posts in any way shape or form.

Lest this keeps happening.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.

--snipped--

The judicial branch consists of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Judicial Center. According to the Constitution, "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Federal Judicial Center is the education and research agency for the federal courts.
http://www.house.gov/content/learn/branches_of_government/

http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_01.html

http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-articles/article-iii-the-judicial-branch

These are for starters, but to make the point clear there will be no debate or argument regarding forum rule #15
We have a judiciary branch - it is a part of our government (imperfect as it may be) and there will not be any argument to the contrary on this forum.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
The judicial branch consists of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Judicial Center. According to the Constitution, "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Federal Judicial Center is the education and research agency for the federal courts.
http://www.house.gov/content/learn/branches_of_government/

http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_01.html

http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-articles/article-iii-the-judicial-branch

These are for starters, but to make the point clear there will be no debate or argument regarding forum rule #15
We have a judiciary branch - it is a part of our government (imperfect as it may be) and there will not be any argument to the contrary on this forum.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

Nobody is disputing the fact that we have a Judiciary Branch. you seem to be twisting my words and trying to silence me. If that is what you want, then just kick me off this forum since my views are to Constitutionally extreme for you.

The question is : What gives SCOTUS the authority to interpret/change the meaning of the Constitution?

The Founders warned of an out of control Judiciary.

Jefferson's warning:

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Thomas Jefferson

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Samuel Adams

Even a Supreme Court Justice warns us:

"Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a Constitution for a nation I do not recognize."

Justice Antonin Scalia


Enough quotes for anyone to plainly see that my question and concern are validated.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Rule 15 has not been broken by me, so what are you talking about?

Twisting my words again Sir?

I will not debate this matter with you on open forum - I have given you my response by PM.

You are presently diverting the thread from a discussion of the OP (6th USCC of Appeals - RKBA relief from disabilities) to how you feel about the Judicial Branch of our government. Such amounts to hyjacking and will not be condoned.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
I will not debate this matter with you on open forum - I have given you my response by PM.

You are presently diverting the thread from a discussion of the OP (6th USCC of Appeals - RKBA relief from disabilities) to how you feel about the Judicial Branch of our government. Such amounts to hyjacking and will not be condoned.

Ok I will start a thread to discuss the issue. I will not post on this thread again.

Peace
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA

And quoting the last paragraph of the linked article.....

The significance of the Tyler ruling may not be fully understood or realized for some time. But for now, it serves not as a “breath of fresh air” but more like a breeze that could become a wind to ultimately blow away overly-restrictive, one-size-fits-all legislation that Second Amendment proponents have long held to be designed more to prevent gun ownership than prevent criminal misuse of firearms.

Just saying WOW in a happy and supportive way!
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust

I had a meeting a few weeks ago with my state rep about anything he has heard about new gun control laws for mental health concerns. I told him people are sane,sane,sane, crazy! And most of the time its hard to catch it upon its onset as it is expressed through behavior. He had no idea about upcoming bills.

This guy wanted to or suggested that he wanted to kill himself. Hey, every or most teenagers says this in their lifetime ...so no one can own a gun after this period of "confusion" ends and the person is "right" again?

Beware of the mental health issues ... people are easily swayed with this issue. Likely even more so than felons issues.
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
While I don't think that people with severe mental illnesses will be buying guns in the near future I am glad to see this ruling because it addresses the need for some sort of redress. I personally know of people who have been targeted by authorities and placed on mental eval holds for 72 hours or even placed in mental hospitals on orders from local officials due to political reasons. These were tax protesters or those openly pushing back against some of the illegal and corrupt activities committed by local government officials. For their efforts they were arrested and placed into behavioral health units to shut them up and discredit their reports. Don't tell me it doesn't happen. I've seen it happen to people I have spoken to face to face.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The primary ruling the word "distant" was used, this "victory" is not as big as it is being made out. In fact it leaves a door open for the feds to legislate how long distant actually is.

Plus advocating unconstitutional laws is advocating violating the law. This fact is clear by court rulings. A unconstitutional law is void, and enforcing that law is illegal. I can't imagine that any of us could accept out daughters or wives being cavity searched on the side of the road and not putting up resistance. We should not be advocating insanity. We must also remember US V Black without someone bucking the do it because I said so would have been an opportunity lost.

We should advocate common sense!

My apologies to the staff, but the rule when strictly applied contradicts itself. Asking people to comply with violence is not wise.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The primary ruling the word "distant" was used, this "victory" is not as big as it is being made out. In fact it leaves a door open for the feds to legislate how long distant actually is.

Plus advocating unconstitutional laws is advocating violating the law. This fact is clear by court rulings. A unconstitutional law is void, and enforcing that law is illegal. I can't imagine that any of us could accept out daughters or wives being cavity searched on the side of the road and not putting up resistance. We should not be advocating insanity. We must also remember US V Black without someone bucking the do it because I said so would have been an opportunity lost.

We should advocate common sense!

My apologies to the staff, but the rule when strictly applied contradicts itself. Asking people to comply with violence is not wise.

Understand your points very well - there is no simple answer. Needless to say, we are not asking people to [strike]comply[/strike] submit to violence; however, personal decisions made at the moment of truth, will not be used to counter or avoid the rule.

Trying to correct a perceived ill in the street is also not normally wise.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Understand your points very well - there is no simple answer. Needless to say, we are not asking people to [strike]comply[/strike] submit to violence; however, personal decisions made at the moment of truth, will not be used to counter or avoid the rule.

Trying to correct a perceived ill in the street is also not normally wise.

Unless that ill means serious physical injury, rape, or death, then the street is the only place to resolve it. Violence is not perceived, other than that I agree with you.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Unless that ill means serious physical injury, rape, or death, then the street is the only place to resolve it. Violence is not perceived, other than that I agree with you.
At this point, we are talking about perceived (planning ahead?) as neither you, me, or any other user here would seem to have suffered to be in that situation......at least not presently.

Still, yes - overall we do agree.
 
Top