Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 7th Circuit: If semi automatic gun ban makes people feel safer it's ok

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    7th Circuit: If semi automatic gun ban makes people feel safer it's ok

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...d-on-feelings/


    The 2nd amendment should be employed against the judges.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    WTF? Well my feelings get hurt when I don't win the lottery! Hence forth all other players are banned from winning the larger jackpots! They can win the small ones because I feel that is fair, but only I alone can be the winner of anything of larger than 10k. By the courts irrational ruling that would be fair.
    :Giant Facepalm:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I'm betting the court wanted to ban semi-auto "assault" weapons, and picked a rationalization that would get popular support.

    This fits right in with the rulings steering 4th Amendment issues toward privacy. Part of the privacy analysis is whether society would recognize a privacy interest in such-and-such. If not, then its not protected by the 4A. Of course, the courts are set up as the high priests with miraculous ability to determine what each of millions of people would be willing to recognize as a legitimate privacy concern. The worst part is their method of analysis makes the 4A subject to democracy, when the whole point of rights is to take them off the table as policy considerations.

    Same for the ruling in the OP. The court just made that piece of the 2A subject to democracy.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I bet if this is heard en banc it will fail. Feelings don't even pass the rational basis test. Of course, I wouldn't mind this, the Maryland case, and any other similar ones failing if Hollis v. Holder made it all the way. I would die of laughter. There would be nothing sweeter than the slave states successfully banning semi auto's only to have bearable machine guns shoved down their throat.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...d-on-feelings/


    The 2nd amendment should be employed against the judges.
    A lynching bee needs to be held for the so-called judges. Rope is cheaper than ammo and is re-usable.

    "Feeling safe" is a self delusion. No matter who you are, where you are, you are NEVER truly safe from evil intents, Ma Nature, stupidity, and plain 'ol bad luck.
    Last edited by Huck; 04-28-2015 at 02:47 AM.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104
    The author of the decision referenced the (fictional) James Bond and his (fictional) preference for handguns in the decision. This makes me seriously question his mental state and continued fitness to sit on the bench of any court in this nation, much less one of the last stops before getting to the Supreme Court.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm betting the court wanted to ban semi-auto "assault" weapons, and picked a rationalization that would get popular support.

    This fits right in with the rulings steering 4th Amendment issues toward privacy. Part of the privacy analysis is whether society would recognize a privacy interest in such-and-such. If not, then its not protected by the 4A.
    This is what happens when Demoncraps (and some Republican judges) attempt to legislate from the bench. Here's their train of thought:

    Idea ---> Idealist Platform ---> Cherry-Picking ---> Tenuous, Inaccurate, and often un-Constitutional Actions ---> Death of a Nation

    Here's a thought: Start with the Constitution:

    Constitution ---> the supreme Law of the Land ---> accurate Federal Law ---> accurate Executive and Judicial decisions ---> Health of a Nation

    Of course, the courts are set up as the high priests with miraculous ability to determine what each of millions of people would be willing to recognize as a legitimate privacy concern. The worst part is their method of analysis makes the 4A subject to democracy, when the whole point of rights is to take them off the table as policy considerations.
    Agreed. Sage analysis. Fortunately, the courts have a number of checks and balances, including guiding legislation, the appeal system, changes in legislation (amnesty), and governor clemency (pardons - both full and reprieve)

    Same for the ruling in the OP. The court just made that piece of the 2A subject to democracy.
    Well, they've tried. We'll see how the checks and balances pan out. In the meantime:

    From the opinion: "If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit."
    When judges make decisions based on perception instead of reality, they've already taken leave of their senses. Merely by rendering such a grossly-un-Constitutional decision, Judge John W. Darrah calls into question his fitness for duty. His inclusion of wording placing perception on higher footing than reality underscores this point. When he attempted to claim (p. 3) "How weapons are sorted between private and military uses has changed over time," he reveals his complete lack of misunderstanding of the nature and intent of the Second Amendment, where "arms" referred to all arms, not just firearms, and makes no distinction whatsoever between military and civilian arms. Law-abiding citizens are equally responsible with a .22 LR target plinker as they are with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. In fact, history proves they're the best determinators of what they need and can handle. Most gun owners either don't feel comfortable owning a sniper rifle, but they have no problem owning pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles. I've fired a Browning M2, but I'm about to go out and purchase one. I'd like a good 30-06 or .038, though.

    The judge also fails to understand the basic premise of reality: Reality is inevitable. Refusing to accept this fact is no better than an ostrich burying its head in the sand when faced with a predator. The ostrich will still die, regardless of what it "perceives."

    Judge John W. Darrah's most serious foul-up, however, enters with his finding that "the passage of time creates an easement across the Second Amendment" (pp. 3-4) That's so incredibly farcical all belief in any system of law and order must be completely suspended to even begin down that road. With that argument we could simply ignore the Constitution in its entirety after a couple of decades due to "the passage of time." At this statement, Judge Darrah's sanity is no longer merely questionable. He's certifiably wacko, and reading through the rest of his blithering idiocy, one might conclude he's yet another uber-liberal Democrat from Chicago.

    "Born in Chicago ... Darrah was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois" (Source)

    My God, who'd have thought...

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsgeek View Post
    The author of the decision referenced the (fictional) James Bond and his (fictional) preference for handguns in the decision. This makes me seriously question his mental state and continued fitness to sit on the bench of any court in this nation, much less one of the last stops before getting to the Supreme Court.
    That and about thirty other comments he made in his finding. The fruitcake is a prime example of why our Founding Fathers saw fit to provide means of removing judges from the bench: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.. (Article III, Section 1). Judge Darrah's flagrant violation of the Constitution constitutes a heinous violation of his oath of office, and very bad behavior. If he does not immediately resign, he needs to be removed without delay.
    Last edited by since9; 05-03-2015 at 09:39 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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