It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCOTUS rejects challenge to Maryland gun ban

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Yea, they met in the middle. And wrote specific things to appease certain groups.

Which has absolutely no bearing on why the Bill of Rights was created. So no, I do not make it sound like they were one homogeneous group. I make it sound like the Founders produced a document, and that they pretty clearly spelled out why they produced that document.

Because that's exactly what they did.




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I know exactly how it worked. By government I mean State government, as it is directly infringing on a Citizen's constitutionally enumerated rights. Because supremacy clause.

I thought the law was a problem when it was first created by the mouthbreathing low-brows that pass for Maryland's lawmakers. However, I naturally assumed the SCOTUS would have no choice but to strike it down since the law clearly restricts a gun where the Constitution spells out clearly: Shall Not Be Infringed

Does "Shall not be infringed" mean something different to you? I mean, I know some people can't read but this is pretty clearly defined. "Shall not" means will not, under any circumstances "be infringed."

Call me melodramatic or partisan masters or whatever else. This law infringes on the Constitution, in the name of some false flag shooting and proposed future "it *might* save one single life blah blah tear jerker stuff"


FYI, I don't follow scripts - too smart for that.


Question: Does this law mean you cannot own a firearm or that you can't own the firearm you want?

The way I see it, your right to OWN a firearm is not infringed at all. Own all of them you want. However, owning a weapon with an increased ammunition capacity and excessive fire rate is going to be a whole different story.

I admittedly don't like gun regulations. I prefer gun owner regulations. People who knee-jerk about this stuff probably shouldn't have one. If you're that quick to fly off the handle then maybe a firearm isn't for you. I've said before, I don't think the founding fathers would have been so keen on having Timmy the Village Idiot walking around with a loaded musket. I'd be willing to bet they would've said something.

So, with this in mind, get a grip, take a deep breath and have a rational discussion.

(BTW: hope you never have a child involved in a "false flag")



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I don't argue whether or not there is a need for one - I believe there is not. However, the precedent was set (whether intentionally or not) by revolting and then establishing a legitimate legal system under the framework decided by the revolution (starting with the DOI). The founders created this precedent, both in their words/intentions and their actions (which was subsequently upheld by our courts - we can see this because our courts didn't abolish our nation/government).

The Right of Rebellion exists when the People, collectively, are aggrieved by their government usually after exhausting other remedies available. I believe this is from the common law, but it could go back even further. That is to say that it isn't an individual right, so an individual or small group of individuals can't legally engage in revolution due to personal injuries sustained by government.

It must be the body of the people, acting under their collective authority to dissolve and reinstall a government. The government, for example, has no authority to dissolve itself. That is exclusively the right of the people or States, as the 10th amendment specifies.

The government is extremely limited in what it can and can not do. Any power not directly given to the government by the Constitution is given to the people (or States) by the BOR's 10A.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Eshel


That's a laughable statement. I was a LEO for 30 years, and have handled/owned/carried more firearms than you ever have in your what...20-30 years on Earth?

It has been proven time and time again that magazine capacity makes little difference during a mass shooting, as reload times are short either way. In a defensive scenario (personal defense or defense against tyranny), high capacity is required. If the military/government needs it, then the people also need it - to keep them in slatemate.

I own a fully automatic AR-15 also. Paid almost $20,000.00 for it, thanks to archaic laws targeting organized crime. My NFA machinegun has never been involved in a crime, nor have I. You might want to reevaluate your statement before you look uniformed, or something.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for restricting any class of firearm. Citizens between certain ages (look it up) are required to own a rifle for the purpose of unorganized militia service. It is also required for the natural right of self defense.

In reference to self defense, I need the biggest, baddest and highest capacity weapon I can get my hands on. Why? Because I want every single advantage over the criminal attacking me. This law does nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on "high capacity" (AKA standard capacity: 30 rounds for AR-15/AK-47) magazines nor does it prevent them from acquiring stolen guns from incompetent government sources (FBI 10mm SMG was stolen, among others).

If criminals are going to be armed (and they always will be), I am going to be better armed.
And if that sounds "un-gripped," "shallow breathed," or "irrational" then so be it.

The infringement stops.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Maybe not why the Bill of Rights was created but it does have a bearing on how much it actually limited government.

The tug-of-war that they had ended up being reflected in this document. People are still pulling for their side's interpretation of it.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: daskakik

Yea, they met in the middle. And wrote specific things to appease certain groups.

Which has absolutely no bearing on why the Bill of Rights was created. So no, I do not make it sound like they were one homogeneous group. I make it sound like the Founders produced a document, and that they pretty clearly spelled out why they produced that document.


Because that's exactly what they did.


This, exactly.

The founders were quite clear in what they wrote. There are plenty of newspeak legalese scholars that want to pretend elsewise, but it was written in such a way to be understood by anyone with even basic reading comprehension.

And those who can't see how infringing on the RKBA is in clear violation of the 2A simply have their heads buried too far in the sand to be reached.

Constitution: RKBA shall not be infringed
Meaning: RKBA will not be infringed upon for any reason by any person at any time.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


But the BOR is spelled out clearly. It was already ratified. Therefore, the time for changes/interpretation is over. This is the time for following/upholding the document, not critiquing/interpreting/bastardizing/infringing upon/legalese-izing it. When it was ratified, it became law. The only exception is a Constitutional convention, ratified by a supermajority of states.

Anyone who interprets "Shall not be infringed" as anything other than "will not be infringed upon under any circumstance" needs to retake basic grade school reading comprehension.
edit on 11/27/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I know exactly how it worked. By government I mean State government, as it is directly infringing on a Citizen's constitutionally enumerated rights. Because supremacy clause.

I thought the law was a problem when it was first created by the mouthbreathing low-brows that pass for Maryland's lawmakers. However, I naturally assumed the SCOTUS would have no choice but to strike it down since the law clearly restricts a gun where the Constitution spells out clearly: Shall Not Be Infringed

Does "Shall not be infringed" mean something different to you? I mean, I know some people can't read but this is pretty clearly defined. "Shall not" means will not, under any circumstances "be infringed."

Call me melodramatic or partisan masters or whatever else. This law infringes on the Constitution, in the name of some false flag shooting and proposed future "it *might* save one single life blah blah tear jerker stuff"


FYI, I don't follow scripts - too smart for that.


You are aware that to you, John C Normal language has a certain meaning and a lawyer will tell you a different story ... you know this, yes?

However, you got something quite wrong:


Citizen's constitutionally enumerated rights


The Federal government has enumerated powers, the states may exercise certain powers, depending on the state constitution, and then what is not enumerated there, is reserved to the people.

The second amendment tells the government what it absolutely is prohibited from doing. Unless you are a lawyer, then you find a loophole.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
However, the precedent was set (whether intentionally or not) by revolting and then establishing a legitimate legal system under the framework decided by the revolution (starting with the DOI). The founders created this precedent, both in their words/intentions and their actions (which was subsequently upheld by our courts - we can see this because our courts didn't abolish our nation/government).

No they didn't. Anything created would have stood until taken down by another revolution.


The Right of Rebellion exists when the People, collectively, are aggrieved by their government usually after exhausting other remedies available. I believe this is from the common law, but it could go back even further. That is to say that it isn't an individual right, so an individual or small group of individuals can't legally engage in revolution due to personal injuries sustained by government.

It must be the body of the people, acting under their collective authority to dissolve and reinstall a government. The government, for example, has no authority to dissolve itself. That is exclusively the right of the people or States, as the 10th amendment specifies.

No, they just have to be strong enough to succeed.


The government is extremely limited in what it can and can not do. Any power not directly given to the government by the Constitution is given to the people (or States) by the BOR's 10A.

So you think you can have a revolution within the existing framework? I think that would make it something other than a revolution.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
For those that like to make the ridiculous "high capacity" argument regarding standard capacity magazines (30 rounds is standard for AR's AK's)



Even the inexperienced shooter's time wasn't affected by the lower capacity magazines. This is rightfully interpreted by gun people as an attack on them, since there is absolutely no point in such laws. They are knee-jerk reactions by tear jerking politicians that seek reelection at the cost of our Constitutional soul.

That price is too damn high, no matter how many lives it saves. (Even though it will be few/none - "Assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes)

But by all means, as soon as the government gives up its weapons of war I will consider doing the same. Voluntarily. This doesn't apply to the People's military. Just the Feds.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Yvhmer


You're mostly correct.

The BOR was almost not added to the Constitution, because like you said the government's powers were spelled out entirely. However, the TEN amendments of the BOR were thought to be *so important* to our freedom/liberty, that a special amendment for each concept was required.

Many thought it wouldn't be needed. Since the government has no power to ban guns, as the Constitution doesn't give it that right specifically. However, they were included anyhow because of their importance.

So yeah, you're partially correct. But partially wrong too.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Not really.

You're talking about people's interpretations of it and how much limit it actually places on the government, I'm talking about the specific text itself. The text itself is pretty unequivocal in that it's a limit put on the government when it comes to certain rights the people have.

Since I haven't broached the subject of where the line on what those limits are, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about it being preposterous to suggest that the Bill of Rights was used to secure the power of the government and you're talking about whatever it is you're talking about, which isn't even germane to the comment I responded to initially, and the point I made within that response. I'm fully aware that people have different interpretations about what the document means, but there is no debate to be had about what the intent of the Bill of Rights was and still is.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Having read the article that is mentioned, the opinion of the original case and read the comments the following can be stated:
The first thing to look at was the actual decision to not to grant certiorari. The fact that there was no dissenting opinion on such, means that the justices agree that there was no merit or grounds for the case to be challenged. If there had been, dissenting opinions and releases would have been put out. And as per all cases, the Justices did have to review the prior case, to determine if such was needed. In that review it was found that the lower court applied an test, but it was narrower and in favor of those who would advocate owning guns, and the position of the NRA.
In the original case, the justices looked at the merits of both sides, and looked at the 2nd amendment, along with all prior court cases, including those that are in support of owning weapons. And the state did have to justify and defend its decision.
This is the question that was primarily brought up by the justices: What kinds of weapons should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own. And the answer was military grade weapons and those weapons that are similar in nature. And they were very strict in that definition of such.
Would you not agree that a private citizen should not own a flame thrower, or a grenade launcher, or grenades, a missile launcher or say an M-16? So why is it acceptable to own weapons that can duplicate such firepower?
And the state pointed out that it was far more than just the CT school shooting, but that of several others as well.

While the state is not going to take away peoples guns, however, under the mandate of the Constitution it has to do something to protect the citizens.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Wow, you are seriously off the handle. Maybe some kind of anti-anxiety med would help.

BTW: I haven't been 20-30 for some time now. So not sure what that's supposed to mean. Maybe you're implying that people younger than you have no knowledge?

And I'll take that bet about own and use. Unless you've been following me my whole life that seems like a purely silly statement to even try to make. (BTW: difference between owned/handled/carried? does this imply you own firearms you've never handled nor carried? or some other weird combination?)

And my point was nowhere what you are ranting about. My point was that nobody is taking away your second amendment right.

May I ask what firearm you carried as an "LEO"?

And I do enjoy how quickly you attack other people's intelligence and knowledge. You do indeed sound like a LEO in that manner. Keep up the good work officer chuckles.

And I pray to god that if your militia rises up, you ask me for a place to sleep. I'd be happy to use my 3rd amendment right to tell you to go screw yourself


(PS: if you're rising up against the government, doesn't that imply that you are no longer recognizing that government's laws? Therefore quoting said government's constitution seems out of place)

The infringement hasn't started.

P.S. see you at the next revolutionary war, Timmy.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Put it to you this way. Ridiculous laws and patently false statements/fear mongering (such as that about "assault weapons" or "assault clipazines") have ensured that a reasonable guy like me won't even vote for reasonable gun control measures, like universal background checks.

It has been proven time and time again that government and civil rights obstructionists/opposition are on the losing side of history. Constitutional rights always win, eventually. However, I have seen how slippery of a slope even the most mundane laws can be.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I know exactly how it worked. By government I mean State government, as it is directly infringing on a Citizen's constitutionally enumerated rights. Because supremacy clause.

What about the Tenth Amendment?


I thought the law was a problem when it was first created by the mouthbreathing low-brows that pass for Maryland's lawmakers. However, I naturally assumed the SCOTUS would have no choice but to strike it down since the law clearly restricts a gun where the Constitution spells out clearly: Shall Not Be Infringed

What if your assumptions were incorrect? SCOTUS has been secured as conservative for the time being thanks to Gorsuch. They still didn't want to review. That doesn't mean anything to you?


Does "Shall not be infringed" mean something different to you? I mean, I know some people can't read but this is pretty clearly defined. "Shall not" means will not, under any circumstances "be infringed."

Weeeeell. That's complicated as I also have a distinct definition of "militia" that doesn't correspond to private gun ownership for everyone.


Call me melodramatic or partisan masters or whatever else. This law infringes on the Constitution, in the name of some false flag shooting and proposed future "it *might* save one single life blah blah tear jerker stuff"

Yet here you are getting all worked up over a state's actions that it sounds like you don't even live near, let alone pass through or enter on a regular basis.


FYI, I don't follow scripts - too smart for that.

Really? I feel like I can code your reactions in this thread to a scripting language:
If (Anti gun something or other in effect == true)[
then
[
Outrage and venting;
Slander anyone who disagrees with you as having the EXACT, OPPOSITE opinion as yourself;
Cite "shall not be infringed";
Assume restriction = ban;
Anecdote about how gun bans don't result in lives saved;
]]
edit on 27-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

And I'm talking about the give and take that went on to create it being reflected in the text.

ETA: A free state is in benefit of the people and if that is through armed citizens then even better so introvert's observation isn't necessarily out of line with what the text literally says.
edit on 27-11-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


I disagree with your entire post.

First, flame throwers are entirely unregulated. They are not firearms. You can also buy grenades launchers are grenades - after paying uncle Sam $200 per NFA - this is how I bought my machinegun. Point in fact, I own an M-16 (well, actually AR-15 with RDIAS) and the world still turns.

The guns are required for personal protection or protection of the state from a tyrannical government. That is why they have no right to restrict such weapons. The weapons already aren't illegal - you can go buy grenades, missiles, machineguns, attack aircraft and whatever else. You just have to pay BATFE $200 for a tax stamp and go the NFA route.

Why does paying off the government suddenly make owning these weapons acceptable, to you?

Point in fact, yes. I believe all of those weapons (and more) should be widely available. They would be much cheaper too. I paid $20k for a cheap piece of metal to convert my rifle to automatic. This was the legal way.

And you're incorrect on your last point. The State has no obligation to protect anyone. It only has an obligation to enforce its laws.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I have no problem with your interpretation of the 2nd.

I just don't believe that it will insure a free state.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


And I'm talking about the give and take that went on to create it being reflected in the text.


Great. A point I haven't contested so I don't know why you feel compelled to manufacture a debate about it.


A free state is in benefit of the people and if that is through armed citizens then even better so introvert's observation isn't necessarily out of line with what the text literally says.


The problem is that that line of thinking is generally used when asserting the idea that the framers meant government controlled militia, rather than the people as individuals. Is that what that member meant? I dunno. But I do know that's usually when that line is used as a supporting statement. Which is why I stated what I stated.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join