• 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
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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
everyone should read the opinion .. its shows the idiocy of the courts in respect to the made up notion of the levels of scrutiny.
 

Grapeshot

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

SovereigntyOrDeath

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

Grapeshot

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

SovereigntyOrDeath

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

davidmcbeth

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

Grapeshot

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

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.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

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

davidmcbeth

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

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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
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.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

Read the document........then comment.
 
Last edited:

SovereigntyOrDeath

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Our court system? Nay nay...if true then the courts would never have opposing opinions.

The constitution's words define the constitution quite well.
 

Grapeshot

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

davidmcbeth

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

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
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.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

Read the document........then comment.

No thanks. I stand by my comments.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

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

SovereigntyOrDeath

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

SovereigntyOrDeath

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