2A applies to carrying guns in cars, says Court of Appeals

[WalkingWolf]

It sounds to me like it might be best if I move on. I am not going to spend my time watching every word I say. Life is to short for this.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

That's a shame, new and fresh opinions from new members are good for the site. But we do have a few rules to watch out for.

 

[cowboy77792]

Rules are good. I am always looking for fun I am not a problem maker I am 50 yr. old and I will not name call or put anyone down that's just the way my friends and I are.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

 

[cowboy77792]

By the way I was poking fun at myself when I said that I resemble that remark.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I avoid ideological ranting and raving in Internet forums. It's really not good for much more than a slap on the back from like-minded individuals. I prefer to deal with the law as it exists and determine what changes to be made, and where legal pressure needs to be exerted, in order to meet our goals.

And even though MyWifeSaidYes has a warm affection for ranting, raving and novel interpretations of law, he cannot deny that my methods have been effective.

Folks, I don't think I've ever said Werz has been wrong on any topic.

Fortunately, that has never been a prerequisite for my ranting and raving.

As far as having 'novel' interpretations of the law, I share that trait with certain police officers, police agencies, villages, cities, townships and other public entities around the state. I encourage Werz and others to help me correct my interpretations, as well as those of the various entities I encounter.

 

[cowboy77792]

How do you add a profile picture to tapatalk?

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

How do you add a profile picture to tapatalk?

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

Not sure about the tapatalk, but if you have a browser on your phone you can set it to desktop mode and access the settings like a PC.

 

[cowboy77792]

Thanks I tried that yesterday it didn't work for me.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

 

[Werz]

When the Second Amendment was promulgated, felons were hanged or forfeited all their property and goods. They had no voting rights, even if released from prison.

How's that for a simple rule?

Cites please?

Excerpts from Bradley Chapin, "Felony Law Reform in the Early Republic," The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 113 (1989): 163.

At the time of independence, proponents of a nascent republican legal system questioned a large part of savage English felony law, which, though incompatible with republican principles, stood in force in American jurisdictions. Ibid.

Although Americans certainly did not hurry to embrace felony law reform during the period of constitution-making, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, and William Bradford did publish works advocating that cause. * * * Both Jefferson and Bradford regarded felony law as constituent. Jefferson referred to his draft statute as "this fundamental law." Bradford thought that such statutes "are so important that they deserve a place among the fundamental laws of every free country." Ibid. at 168.

Distinguishing sodomy and bestiality, as species of the genus buggery, Jefferson stripped bestiality of its criminality, noting that because "it can never make any progress," it could not injure society. His search of English law led his to recommend a savage penalty for rape and sodomy. * * * The Pennsylvania statute of 1786 had removed buggery from the capital list but had continued to punish rape with hanging. Ibid. at 171.

Practical reform of felony laws hinged on finding rational penalties for burglary, robbery, and counterfeiting. In all jurisdictions these crimes produced a large percentage of felony convictions and hangings. During the seven years prior to the passage of the statute of 1786, burglary and robbery accounted for 68 percent of the felony convictions and 72 percent of the hangings in Pennsylvania. Ibid. at 172.

In #64, his draft reform statute, Jefferson reduced the penalty for all forms of counterfeiting to six years at hard labor and forfeiture of lands and chattel. Statute #65, drafted by Jefferson and enacted by the assembly in 1779, made forging or passing bills of credit, treasury notes, loan office certificates, or payment vouchers a felony of death. Ibid. at 173.

And keep in mind that some of those were reforms.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Excerpts from Bradley Chapin, "Felony Law Reform in the Early Republic," The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 113 (1989): 163.






And keep in mind that some of those were reforms.

This is what you posted "When the Second Amendment was promulgated, felons were hanged or forfeited all their property and goods. They had no voting rights, even if released from prison."

You did not post any percentages, you posted felons, as if all felons for all felonies were hanged, which is not true. When you did come up with cites they show that penalties were severe for crimes, so what? The second amendment makes absolutely no mention of restricting rights of the people based on any criteria. Due process covers loss of property and life. Once a debt is paid it is paid, of course progressives would restrict the rights of corpses if they could, and make some excuse for it.

So where in the second amendment does it say except for felons? Or maybe you would like us to go back to burning witches?

 

[Werz]

So where in the second amendment does it say except for felons? Or maybe you would like us to go back to burning witches?

You asked for a cite. I gave you one and included quotes. You didn't like the answer, so you moved the goalposts.

Congratulations. You have discovered why I usually ignore you. Discussions with dogmatic ideologues are a waste of my time.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons[.]" District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2816-2817 (2008).

That is the law of the land. If not, prove me wrong.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You asked for a cite. I gave you one and included quotes. You didn't like the answer, so you moved the goalposts.

Congratulations. You have discovered why I usually ignore you. Discussions with dogmatic ideologues are a waste of my time.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons[.]" District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2816-2817 (2008).

That is the law of the land. If not, prove me wrong.

And many people do not agree with that part of the ruling~~~again cite where the second amendment mentions except for felons?

BTW at one time slavery was the law of the land, bet you agree with that too because it was once common?

 

[Werz]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons[.]" District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2816-2817 (2008).

That is the law of the land. If not, prove me wrong.

And many people do not agree with that part of the ruling~~~again cite where the second amendment mentions except for felons?

When those people are appointed to the United States Supreme Court, their opinion will have authority. Until then, Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution apply. Or are you selective in the portions of the constitution which you choose to recognize?

BTW at one time slavery was the law of the land, bet you agree with that too because it was once common?

Perhaps you are also unfamiliar with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hint: It makes slavery unconstitutional, too.

But I appreciate you playing the slavery card as a personal attack. Your desperation is palpable.

 

[Cerberus]

It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths to which Lawyers will go, to bamboozle a gullible public to give way too much respect to Lawyers and the Courts.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons[.]" District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2816-2817 (2008).

That is the law of the land. If not, prove me wrong.

Let the genuflecting begin!

And many people do not agree with that part of the ruling~~~again cite where the second amendment mentions except for felons?

When those people are appointed to the United States Supreme Court, their opinion will have authority...

The notion that “Lawful authority” is based upon the “opinion” of nine individuals, or in the case of lower courts, one individual, in black dresses, sitting up high behind an impressive looking desk, is the primary reason the system is so messed up. Only those indoctrinated in the system, (law school graduates) would think otherwise. Lawful authority has its foundation in basic morality. When it descends to the level of opinion (can you say whim), whether it be the opinion of one, several or many, it isn't law it is tyranny.

...Until then, Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution apply. Or are you selective in the portions of the constitution which you choose to recognize?

Well, I, for one, am selective about which parts of the Constitution are the controlling factor for a given set of facts. “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The clear intent of those that wrote and incorporated these words into the Constitution, was that no one, claiming authority of Government, would interfere with that Right. Are we to believe, that the writers of Article III, intended to give the Courts power to change the Constitution, at every breeze blowing through political thought. NONSENSE.

Lastly, cite for me please the section of Article III, that gives the supreme Court the authority to add to or take from, (“interpret”), what is, for intelligent people the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Oh sorry, I forgot, you can't actually find a true Article III Court in this country anymore.

 

[Werz]

The notion that “Lawful authority” is based upon the “opinion” of nine individuals, or in the case of lower courts, one individual, in black dresses, sitting up high behind an impressive looking desk, is the primary reason the system is so messed up. Only those indoctrinated in the system, (law school graduates) would think otherwise. Lawful authority has its foundation in basic morality. When it descends to the level of opinion (can you say whim), whether it be the opinion of one, several or many, it isn't law it is tyranny.

Well, I, for one, am selective about which parts of the Constitution are the controlling factor for a given set of facts. “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The clear intent of those that wrote and incorporated these words into the Constitution, was that no one, claiming authority of Government, would interfere with that Right. Are we to believe, that the writers of Article III, intended to give the Courts power to change the Constitution, at every breeze blowing through political thought. NONSENSE.

Lastly, cite for me please the section of Article III, that gives the supreme Court the authority to add to or take from, (“interpret”), what is, for intelligent people the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Oh sorry, I forgot, you can't actually find a true Article III Court in this country anymore.

OK. So you don't like the law, and you don't like the basic provisions of Article III of the United States Constitution when they don't fit in with your personal moral judgment.

I strongly recommend that you find a nation to take you in where the law is whatever you want it to be. If you bring enough guns and friends to use them, I understand that certain East African nations might fit your requirements.

Until then, I will simply cite to the Forum Rules:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

 

[SteveInCO]

Unfortunately, our opinions as to how the law should be interpreted are worth zero in a court of law, the SCOTUS's opinions are worth a lot more (and other courts as well, but less so than SCOTUS). No matter how batsh*t wrong they might objectively be.

 

[Cerberus]

The notion that “Lawful authority” is based upon the “opinion” of nine individuals, or in the case of lower courts, one individual, in black dresses, sitting up high behind an impressive looking desk, is the primary reason the system is so messed up. Only those indoctrinated in the system, (law school graduates) would think otherwise. Lawful authority has its foundation in basic morality. When it descends to the level of opinion (can you say whim), whether it be the opinion of one, several or many, it isn't law it is tyranny.

Well, I, for one, am selective about which parts of the Constitution are the controlling factor for a given set of facts. “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The clear intent of those that wrote and incorporated these words into the Constitution, was that no one, claiming authority of Government, would interfere with that Right. Are we to believe, that the writers of Article III, intended to give the Courts power to change the Constitution, at every breeze blowing through political thought. NONSENSE.

Lastly, cite for me please the section of Article III, that gives the supreme Court the authority to add to or take from, (“interpret”), what is, for intelligent people the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Oh sorry, I forgot, you can't actually find a true Article III Court in this country anymore.

OK. So you don't like the law, and you don't like the basic provisions of Article III of the United States Constitution when they don't fit in with your personal moral judgment.

I strongly recommend that you find a nation to take you in where the law is whatever you want it to be. If you bring enough guns and friends to use them, I understand that certain East African nations might fit your requirements.

Until then, I will simply cite to the Forum Rules:

I am going to quote Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne speaking to Samuel Norton in The Shawshank Redemption. “How can you be so obtuse... Is it deliberate?

This is a typical Lawyer response, turn everything bass ackwards, and attempt to change the entire argument. I feel like I am back on the school yard, and in a disagreement with another kid he says to me, OH Yeah! I am left skewered by his rapier wit.

I was not speaking to whether or not I am a big fan of the Constitution, in general, or to Article III in particular. I was addressing what it says and doesn't say about the powers delegated to the Court. I know it is a subtle difference, but try to stay on point.

The entire emphasis of my post was to oppose the notion, that any one man, small group of men, or even a large group, get to decide, on a continually changing basis, what the law is, it amounts to nothing more than semi-organized chaos, and tyranny. As far as the, “...bring enough friends and guns...” nonsense goes, it is the government that is claiming a monopoly on the use of force!

I don't really know what your point was supposed to be with regard to the forum rules on citing authorities, but if you want cites, I will give you two.

Justice Hugo Black, Columbia University's Charpentier Lectures (1968):
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."

Lastly, and again, this one from the Supreme Law of the land, I will go slow this time so you can keep up.

“...[T]he...right...of...the...people...to...keep...and...bear...arms...shall...not...be...infringed.”

 

[OC for ME]

Everybody gets the "shall not be infringed" part. The issue is that no one, to date, has challenged any law on that point. If just one dude who gets busted for OCing, then convicted of a misdemeanor, appeals all the way up to the High Court then they would either take the case and be forced to agree, or rewrite the constitution and then that's the end of the debate.

Your Honor(s): My client claims his right to carry, OC, using the plain language of the 2A, and the clear as mud language of this court in Heller.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Everybody gets the "shall not be infringed" part. The issue is that no one, to date, has challenged any law on that point. If just one dude who gets busted for OCing, then convicted of a misdemeanor, appeals all the way up to the High Court then they would either take the case and be forced to agree, or rewrite the constitution and then that's the end of the debate.

Your Honor(s): My client claims his right to carry, OC, using the plain language of the 2A, and the clear as mud language of this court in Heller.

IMO that is why the feds are not enforcing some gun laws. BUT when Billary Obama gets elected sooner or later Scalia will be retiring. Then I am sad to say we will probably get screwed. I hope Scalia lives to be 200 and stays working the rest of his life. He is not perfect, but just one more libturd judge is all it will take to kill the 2A.

 

[Werz]

I was not speaking to whether or not I am a big fan of the Constitution, in general, or to Article III in particular. I was addressing what it says and doesn't say about the powers delegated to the Court. * * *

Lastly, and again, this one from the Supreme Law of the land, I will go slow this time so you can keep up.

“...[T]he...right...of...the...people...to...keep...and...bear...arms...shall...not...be...infringed.”

Also from the Supreme Law of the Land:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution[.]"

Is that clear enough for you, or will you a require a diagram with stick figures?

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

I was not speaking to whether or not I am a big fan of the Constitution, in general, or to Article III in particular. I was addressing what it says and doesn't say about the powers delegated to the Court. * * *

Lastly, and again, this one from the Supreme Law of the land, I will go slow this time so you can keep up.

“...[T]he...right...of...the...people...to...keep...and.. .bear...arms...shall...not...be...infringed.”

Also from the Supreme Law of the Land:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution[.]"

Is that clear enough for you, or will you a require a diagram with stick figures?

Gentlemen, if you will please stick to facts and expressing your opinions thereon, but leave the personal animosity somewhere else - it is not welcome here.