Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Federal Court Rules that 2nd Amendment Right is Now a Reason for Cops to Detain You

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Federal Court Rules that 2nd Amendment Right is Now a Reason for Cops to Detain You

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fed...ying-firearms/
    Grand Rapids, Mich. In a stunning violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.

    The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement for engaging in a completely lawful activity.

    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fed...kyLCoZZCm1i.99
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    That sucks
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    SCOTUS bound if Deffert is so inclined. Deffert could be the case that changes the LE paradigm.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    The Federal court can't be trusted to make lawful or Constitutional rulings. Thankfully at least a few know any ruling contrary to the Constitution is void
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I have no faith that justices are interested in justice.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    SCOTUS bound if Deffert is so inclined. Deffert could be the case that changes the LE paradigm.
    After today I doubt that would make much difference. Clearly 6 Justices do not care what the plain letter of the law says but will vote their personal political opinion instead. Today we sadly had proof that the rule of law has essentially ceased to function for now in the US. Getting further 2A cases certified to SCOTUS in this current environment may be the worst thing that could happen.

    But then my outlook at the moment is quite jaded...
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    The 6th down in OH is more likely to overturn the decision, and the then the SC wont touch it after that.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    After today I doubt that would make much difference. Clearly 6 Justices do not care what the plain letter of the law says but will vote their personal political opinion instead. Today we sadly had proof that the rule of law has essentially ceased to function for now in the US. Getting further 2A cases certified to SCOTUS in this current environment may be the worst thing that could happen.

    But then my outlook at the moment is quite jaded...
    Amen to this. Those six jurists chose to ignore the Constitution in favor of political expediency, and perhaps their place in history. And this at the cost of what the Founders created. The door to despotism has been opened a bit further with their decision.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Amen to this. Those six jurists chose to ignore the Constitution in favor of political expediency, and perhaps their place in history. And this at the cost of what the Founders created. The door to despotism has been opened a bit further with their decision.
    not only did they ignore the constitution, they also ignored state and local law.

    doing a lawful act even within state law is not grounds for detainment or RAS or PC, decision needs to be appealed and the state supreme court needs to have it's judges disbarred, and their license/certificates to practice law removed, PERMANENTLY, for lack of intelligence, and common sense, since it is obviously interfering with their ability to judge within the confines of the law, and therefore unable to uphold/adhere to the requirements of office.

    how do idiots like this get into these positions of power?

  10. #10
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    After today I doubt that would make much difference. Clearly 6 Justices do not care what the plain letter of the law says but will vote their personal political opinion instead. Today we sadly had proof that the rule of law has essentially ceased to function for now in the US. Getting further 2A cases certified to SCOTUS in this current environment may be the worst thing that could happen.

    But then my outlook at the moment is quite jaded...
    I think you may be right. I dread 2A cases going to the SCOTUS.
    IMHO the SCOTUS abandoned the constitution in the 30's under FDR's coercion.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Just FYI, this ruling appears to be in direct conflict with both the Fourth and Sixth Circuit Federal Courts of Appeal:

    Fourth Circuit:
    Great case for open carry rights from 4th Circuit

    Sixth Circuit:
    Toledo: The Fourth Amendment PROTECTS open carry of guns (6th Circuit)

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    this is what happens when you have a lack of moral absolutes and project the "everything is flexible in interpretation" onto such things.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    this is what happens when you have a lack of moral absolutes and project the "everything is flexible in interpretation" onto such things.
    Your scheme only works when I agree with your baseline. Since there are no moral absolutes, everything is a negotiated baseline. I agree that killing people is bad, in most cases, so the details of whom and under what circumstances is the negotiation.
    Most people agree self defense is good, but many people are deluded by limited experience into thinking that all disagreement can be amicably resolved without bloodshed. The settlers in Texas were killed until a group realized that there could never be a negotiation so long as one party was willing to fight to the death and would never compromise. Right or wrong, it was the lack of a settled baseline and inability to negotiate that resulted in the demise of the Comanche. This was not the case with eastern tribes because they were willing to negotiate. One can stand their ground and win or die trying, or one can work to an acceptable settlement. There are many people in the U.S. who think one should not defend oneself with lethal force under any circumstance. So what is our moral absolute?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    As the world shrinks there absolutely can be some moral absolutes. Most are rooted in property rights and how the rights originate within the individual.

    Murder morally absolutely wrong. Theft and sexual rape also. Values and morals need to be distinctly separated.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  16. #16
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    this is what happens when you have a lack of moral absolutes and project the "everything is flexible in interpretation" onto such things.
    Agreed. I think you've defined "lawlessness" there.
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Since there are no moral absolutes, everything is a negotiated baseline.
    There are absolutely no absolutes except that there are no absolutes .... hmm.
    Last edited by Liberty-or-Death; 06-28-2015 at 06:58 AM.
    Be active.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Your scheme only works when I agree with your baseline. Since there are no moral absolutes, everything is a negotiated baseline. I agree that killing people is bad, in most cases, ....
    No, killing people is absolutely bad, no matter the circumstance. What is "negotiated" is what consequences from the killing, from none to death.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No, killing people is absolutely bad, no matter the circumstance. What is "negotiated" is what consequences from the killing, from none to death.
    And this is a prime example of the kind of disagreement reasonable people can have about what is bad.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    ... to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce ...

    Goldwater's 1964 Acceptance Speech
    I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
    [ ... ]
    Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...aterspeech.htm
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Cookeville TN
    Posts
    30
    So, they have officially sanctioned doing in Michigan what they have been doing in TN ever since the laws regarding "permits" for our right to exercise the second amendment? It has been a crime to carry a gun here ever since it was written into law that we had to have a permit for it.

Posting Permissions

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