Terrible Decision

EMNofSeattle · Nov 25, 2013

Dave_pro2a said:
So, you are ok with justice being both blind and amoral. Great.

morals vary from person to person. no two people will ever agree on everything when it comes to amoral, that's a debate that won't be solved on this forum.

making a claim that "courts are more often wrong then right" needs to be appropriately qualified.... in that a courts word is by definition right until the law is amended or a higher court reverses....

Dave_pro2a · Nov 25, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
morals vary from person to person. no two people will ever agree on everything

Spoken like a true believer in the modern invention of legal positivism.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 26, 2013

deanf said:
[/COLOR]

There is our sticking point.

If you read the whole paragraph that opens page 9, you will note they refer to Gunwall, A case about cocaine possession - nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They partially quote The Court's reasoning in Gunwall. The quote in question could also be written like so: "We observed (in Gunwall) that where the United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers, the Washington Constitution is a limitation on the otherwise plenary power of the state."

You see? That whole paragraph must be read in the context of Gunwall. The Court is establishing a basis for their reasoning in Jorgenson by referring to Gunwall.

I read the whole paragraph, I read the whole decision.

Apparently you didn't read my whole post about the BOR.....

sudden valley gunner · Nov 26, 2013

Dave_pro2a said:
Citizens grant the Federal government some limited powers and assigned rights. It used to be by consent, now... not so much.

The State has no plenary powers. It does not even posses the plenary power to exist, unlike real people. If it cannot posses the power to exist (justly anyways), then all powers it has are temporarily assigned.

Courts are wrong more often than they are right.

Dave_pro2a said:
Spoken like a true believer in the modern invention of legal positivism.

+1 on both accounts.

Some just worship at the alter of the state. They will insist on believing it is top down and that is the way it supposed to be.

Dave_pro2a · Nov 26, 2013

deanf said:
[/COLOR]

There is our sticking point.

If you read the whole paragraph that opens page 9, you will note they refer to Gunwall, A case about cocaine possession - nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Drug prohibition, gun prohibition. Not a logic huge leap to make, for the nanny state.

Dave_pro2a · Nov 26, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
+1 on both accounts.

Some just worship at the alter of the state. They will insist on believing it is top down and that is the way it supposed to be.

Thank a teacher (and public education).

XD45PlusP · Nov 26, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Yep, erasing due process. The judges had an opportunity here to protect our rights instead they protected statism.

I noticed their belief the federal 2A is a granted right.....

I noticed their concentration on state rules and policing power contrary to article 1 section 1.

Yes,

Notice how the 2nd is subject to "Intermediate Scrutiny" and Article 1 Sec 7 is subject to the Police Powers of the state. Silly ****......

deanf · Nov 26, 2013

I read the whole paragraph, I read the whole decision. Apparently you didn't read my whole post about the BOR.....

I did. We agree on that.

I noticed their belief the federal 2A is a granted right.....

I want to make sure I understand your position. You believe that "We observed that where the United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers," means that the court thinks the rights listed in the BOR are actually "powers" and that they are granted?

Difdi · Nov 26, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I noticed their belief the federal 2A is a granted right.....

If the second amendment grants us rights rather than prohibiting government interference in an existing right, then I'd have to point out that the first amendment uses nearly identical language. If one such granted right can be ungranted, then any granted right can be. Like the right to freedom of expression or the right to due process of law.

For that matter, any right secured by a federal constitutional amendment can be read that way if the second can be.

deanf · Nov 26, 2013

If the second amendment grants us rights rather than prohibiting government interference in an existing right, then I'd have to point out that the first amendment uses nearly identical language.

But that's not what The Court said in this case, so it's nothing to worry about in the context of this case.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 27, 2013

deanf said:
I did. We agree on that.

I want to make sure I understand your position. You believe that "We observed that where the United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers," means that the court thinks the rights listed in the BOR are actually "powers" and that they are granted?

They made it look like it was a grant to the federal powers it is not.

Dave_pro2a · Nov 27, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
They made it look like it was a grant to the federal powers it is not.

To be fair, courts often write 'garbage' because it's quick and easy.

The odds are pretty good this was written by some drunk law clerk. The judges may have signed off on it without hardly reading it because they just wanted to get on the links and toss a few back themselves.

Y, srs.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 27, 2013

Dave_pro2a said:
To be fair, courts often write 'garbage' because it's quick and easy.

The odds are pretty good this was written by some drunk law clerk. The judges may have signed off on it without hardly reading it because they just wanted to get on the links and toss a few back themselves.

Y, srs.

LOL....true dat....+1

Terrible Decision

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member

XD45PlusP

Regular Member

deanf

Regular Member

Difdi

Regular Member

deanf

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member