Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Stupid question # 2,435

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Buena Park, California, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Why doesn't District of Columbia v Heller negate Ca stupid carry laws/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    Incorporation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29

    DC is not a state, so the US Constitution directly applies to it.

    There is a case coming up for the supreme court (McDonald vs. Chicago) that is supposed to settle weather the 2nd amendment is incorporated or not.

    Article on it here: http://www.hereticalideas.com/2009/1...ald-v-chicago/





  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Buena Park, California, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Sorry, I am a sovereign. This whole, "it doesn't apply to you" thing, doens't work for me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Frosty_In_CA wrote:
    Sorry, I am a sovereign. This whole, "it doesn't apply to you" thing, doens't work for me.
    So how do you work out your use of public roads? Do you have a treaty with your place of residence?

    And how does your "sovereign" status affect your payment of sales tax, phone tax, etc.? Do you have treaties to cover those things?

  5. #5
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Frosty_In_CA wrote:
    Sorry, I am a sovereign. This whole, "it doesn't apply to you" thing, doens't work for me.
    While I agree with you, there are men with guns who own prisons, and they will either kill you or lock you up if you don't follow their rules. They have put themselves into high positions and convinced the majority of the people that they have the power to rule over them. You are always free to challenge them, but it may be very costly for you to do so.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Buena Park, California, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    While this is true, I am winning "converts" all the time! The last one was a LEO!

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    The whole incorporation thing is a joke.....the ammendments were meant to apply to anyone in any state of the union.

    Damn politicians ....
    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)

  8. #8
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    The whole incorporation thing is a joke.....the ammendments were meant to apply to anyone in any state of the union.

    Damn politicians ....
    ...and lawyers! Seems the phrase "Supreme law of the land" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    The whole incorporation thing is a joke.....the ammendments were meant to apply to anyone in any state of the union.

    Damn politicians ....
    ...and lawyers! Seems the phrase "Supreme law of the land" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
    ...lol I had put lawyers in and then withdrew it because there is some hope with guys such as Mike passing his bar. I agree though and I have had enought dealings with lawyers to know what is right, fair or just is not a concern to most, and they view all contracts as negotiable including our constitution and laws.
    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)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Buena Park, California, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    This is EXACTLY why we need to rely on ourselves and learning to use sovereingty and the common law, instead of relying on lawyers.

Posting Permissions

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