Armed citizen saves life of Police officer

[JakeStarkey]

All of the links open, including the Heller decision.

Another OP fail by bigrebnc.

And bigreb digs his own hole.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All of the links open, including the Heller decision.

Another OP fail by bigrebnc.

And bigreb digs his own hole.

you've made unproven claims and claim victory? Don't work that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not proved anything, bigrebnc, so, yes, you fail. The affirmation is yours and you have not met it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

End the thread. bigderp fails again.

SCOTUS, despite Miller, can regulate dangerous and unusual weapons unassociated with the militia.

If something is in common use that would not make it unusual

Only your opinion. Show that SCOTUS decision can't remove the 'common use' concept.

You can't.

Well, certainly SCOTUS can remove the 'common use' concept by a subsequent case decision. They can also issue an order which requires you to dress up in a pink tu-tu

http://undress4success.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tutu.jpg

But until they do so, I would not worry about it Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb continues to troll. Reported.

Edited, since bigrebnc does not know how to open links.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Supreme Court of the United States

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Jun 26, 2008 – HELLER. Opinion of the Court. Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police ..... 2008), online at What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson :: SSRN ...

by BA Neil - 2009 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
The Heller Decision and Its Possible Implications for Right-to-Carry Laws Nationally ... The decision by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. ... article is cited · Alert me if a correction is posted · Similar articles in this journal · Download to citation manager ... Print ISSN: 1043-9862; Online ISSN: 1552-5406.

bump for big reb

 

[bigrebnc1775]

legaleagle_45, in your opinion, does Heller recognize the authority of SCOTUS to regulate gun ownership and to restrict or ban certain types of weapons deemed "unusual and dangerous"?

oh dear gawd jakes does what he does best move the goal post.
Opinion of the Court
Miller ruled: In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

 

[JakeStarkey]

If something is in common use that would not make it unusual

Only your opinion. Show that SCOTUS decision can't remove the 'common use' concept.

You can't.

Well, certainly SCOTUS can remove the 'common use' concept by a subsequent case decision. They can also issue an order which requires you to dress up in a pink tu-tu

http://undress4success.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tutu.jpg

But until they do so, I would not worry about it Jake.

Yes, SCOTUS has the authority is the point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

legaleagle_45, in your opinion, does Heller recognize the authority of SCOTUS to regulate gun ownership and to restrict or ban certain types of weapons deemed "unusual and dangerous"?

oh dear gawd jakes does what he does best move the goal post.
Opinion of the Court
Miller ruled: In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

And Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf recognizes SCOTUS has the future right to regulate ownership and restrict certain designated types of weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb continues to troll. Reported.

Edited, since bigrebnc does not know how to open links.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Supreme Court of the United States

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Jun 26, 2008 – HELLER. Opinion of the Court. Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police ..... 2008), online at What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson :: SSRN ...

by BA Neil - 2009 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
The Heller Decision and Its Possible Implications for Right-to-Carry Laws Nationally ... The decision by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. ... article is cited · Alert me if a correction is posted · Similar articles in this journal · Download to citation manager ... Print ISSN: 1043-9862; Online ISSN: 1552-5406.

bump for big reb

bump all you want you lost

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb continues to troll. Reported.

Edited, since bigrebnc does not know how to open links.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Supreme Court of the United States

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Jun 26, 2008 – HELLER. Opinion of the Court. Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police ..... 2008), online at What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson :: SSRN ...

by BA Neil - 2009 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
The Heller Decision and Its Possible Implications for Right-to-Carry Laws Nationally ... The decision by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. ... article is cited · Alert me if a correction is posted · Similar articles in this journal · Download to citation manager ... Print ISSN: 1043-9862; Online ISSN: 1552-5406.

bump for big reb

bump all you want you lost

And Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf trumps you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

legaleagle_45, in your opinion, does Heller recognize the authority of SCOTUS to regulate gun ownership and to restrict or ban certain types of weapons deemed "unusual and dangerous"?

oh dear gawd jakes does what he does best move the goal post.
Opinion of the Court
Miller ruled: In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

And Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf recognizes SCOTUS has the future right to regulate ownership and restrict certain designated types of weapons.

The supreme court cannot regulated weapons that they have deemed protected by the second amendment without having the second amendment amended.

 

[JakeStarkey]

oh dear gawd jakes does what he does best move the goal post.
Opinion of the Court
Miller ruled: In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

And Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf recognizes SCOTUS has the future right to regulate ownership and restrict certain designated types of weapons.

The supreme court cannot regulated weapons that they have deemed protected by the second amendment without having the second amendment amended.

That is not what Heller says. I doubt you can post any federal law at all to support your statement.

 

[legaleagle_45]

legaleagle_45, in your opinion, does Heller recognize the authority of SCOTUS to regulate gun ownership and to restrict or ban certain types of weapons deemed "unusual and dangerous"?

No. SCOTUS has absolutely no authority to regulate gun ownership. They can find a law which has been passed by the feds or a state or a local government to be constitutional or unconstituional and in regards to the 2nd can uphold a law which bans dangerous and unsual weapons, but they can not create such a law sua sponte

So if you are asking if Congress can pass laws which ban "dangerous and unusal" weapons and if SCOTUS agrees with that assesment that the weapon in question is both dangerous and unusal, then Heller authorizes SCOTUS to uphold that law.

Not trying to be "smart", but SCOTUS does not have the power to create such a law, they can only say it is ok or not ok.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf recognizes SCOTUS has the future right to regulate ownership and restrict certain designated types of weapons.

The supreme court cannot regulated weapons that they have deemed protected by the second amendment without having the second amendment amended.

That is not what Heller says. I doubt you can post any federal law at all to support your statement.

 

[taichiliberal]

First off, I question if this event happened because it has not been on any main stream news sources that I am aware of: perhaps you could cite one, maybe it was on Fox News? Because, whenever presenting facts, 'consider the source' is always important, and the source in this link is pro-gun, thus biased. Second, how do we know the officer was being 'beaten to death,' or that he was 'screaming for help' as is described in the link? The citizen with a gun killed this man, shot him several times, according to your link. How do we know that was warranted? Why not just call 911 have the police come and take care of it? If this was a funeral procession, there would be a lot of people around, people to break up the fight if possible. The act of the citizen who simply pulled out his gun and shot a half dozen holes into the man seems very extreme, excessive. Does a person actually deserve to die because they are in a fist fight, even if it is a cop they have attacked? I have put forth what I think are some reasonable questions. I would appreciate not being called a lot of names for doing so. Free speech, open dialogue, all that.

Maybe it's because the corporate and Authoritarian media only want to feed you the "Guns are evil in all circumstances" propaganda. Start exploring outside the media bubble of the International Global Banks. They hate you, they dominate you, they own you. Break free.

You're not making sense.....the NRA represents weapons manufacturers, which are CORPORATIONS. Why would the "corporate" media advocate against one of it's most ardent sponsors? Therefore, the lie of the "liberal media" falls apart.

A story that is over 5 years old.......did any check to see if it was carried in any of your local papers under "around the nation" section at the time? If not, then you can't claim "liberal media" blackout.

And again, how many of these "civilian hero" cases occur as compared to illegal guns from states with lax gun laws showing up in states with tougher gun laws that are used in crimes?

How many cops/people are nearly shot by civilian wanna-be heroes (remember the Gifford case)?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First off, I question if this event happened because it has not been on any main stream news sources that I am aware of: perhaps you could cite one, maybe it was on Fox News? Because, whenever presenting facts, 'consider the source' is always important, and the source in this link is pro-gun, thus biased. Second, how do we know the officer was being 'beaten to death,' or that he was 'screaming for help' as is described in the link? The citizen with a gun killed this man, shot him several times, according to your link. How do we know that was warranted? Why not just call 911 have the police come and take care of it? If this was a funeral procession, there would be a lot of people around, people to break up the fight if possible. The act of the citizen who simply pulled out his gun and shot a half dozen holes into the man seems very extreme, excessive. Does a person actually deserve to die because they are in a fist fight, even if it is a cop they have attacked? I have put forth what I think are some reasonable questions. I would appreciate not being called a lot of names for doing so. Free speech, open dialogue, all that.

Maybe it's because the corporate and Authoritarian media only want to feed you the "Guns are evil in all circumstances" propaganda. Start exploring outside the media bubble of the International Global Banks. They hate you, they dominate you, they own you. Break free.

You're not making sense.....the NRA represents weapons manufacturers, which are CORPORATIONS. Why would the "corporate" media advocate against one of it's most ardent sponsors? Therefore, the lie of the "liberal media" falls apart.

Again, what's the source of this story?

Straw man the NRA fights for the rights of the gun owner.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

legaleagle_45, in your opinion, does Heller recognize the authority of SCOTUS to regulate gun ownership and to restrict or ban certain types of weapons deemed "unusual and dangerous"?

No. SCOTUS has absolutely no authority to regulate gun ownership. They can find a law which has been passed by the feds or a state or a local government to be constitutional or unconstituional and in regards to the 2nd can uphold a law which bans dangerous and unsual weapons, but they can not create such a law sua sponte

So if you are asking if Congress can pass laws which ban "dangerous and unusal" weapons and if SCOTUS agrees with that assesment that the weapon in question is both dangerous and unusal, then Heller authorizes SCOTUS to uphold that law.

Not trying to be "smart", but SCOTUS does not have the power to create such a law, they can only say it is ok or not ok.

Didn't I try to tell you that what you posted earlier was to in-depth for starkey?

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . which means that SCOTUS has the final say on a law that regulates ownership and restricts certain weapons. That has always been the case in Heller.

Final word. Unsubscribe.

Go for it, bigrebnc. And have a good Easter weekend.

 

[taichiliberal]

Maybe it's because the corporate and Authoritarian media only want to feed you the "Guns are evil in all circumstances" propaganda. Start exploring outside the media bubble of the International Global Banks. They hate you, they dominate you, they own you. Break free.

You're not making sense.....the NRA represents weapons manufacturers, which are CORPORATIONS. Why would the "corporate" media advocate against one of it's most ardent sponsors? Therefore, the lie of the "liberal media" falls apart.

Again, what's the source of this story?

Straw man the NRA fights for the rights of the gun owner.

Really? Because it seems that the NRA leadership is IGNORING the will of the majority of it's members!

Does the NRA agree with Wayne LaPierre?

The only straw man here is LaPierre...a jackass who eats the money shelled to him by weapons and ammunition manufacturers and shits out the baloney we've all read in recent news.

 

[Spoonman]

so if the liberals response to personal safety is that's what the police are there for to protect you, why do we have so many murders? shouldn't they be stopping them?