Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Flash]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

 

[Flash]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Another example of bat shit crazy gun control laws. "Reasonable" gun control laws are never reasonable.

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

A man who was picking up a student walked into Byrns Darden Elementary School packing a handgun, two spare magazines and a knife on Monday.

School Resource Officers with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office stopped the man and arrested him for possessing a firearm inside an elementary school, according to a news release.

At 3:18 p.m., the 53-year-old man entered the school to pick up a student, according to Sandra Brandon, MCSO spokeswoman. Front office staff noticed what looked to be the outline of a firearm under his clothing and notified the School Resource Officer.

While waiting for the SRO, faculty, staff and administrators monitored the man from the office and remotely via cameras, according to Anthony Jordan, CMCSS spokesman.

The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit, said he was unaware that it was against the law to carry in the school. The law is posted on the door when entering the school, Brandon said.

I have to say that even I have a problem with this.

First off, you need to know the laws when carrying a concealed weapon, and also have to accept the consequences if you decide to break the law. It doesn't mean you have to approve of the laws, but just abide by them.

The problem here is that if this guy was a kook who did have a permit, allowed to enter the school armed, he could use that permit to carry out a mass murder of students. That's why there's a law against going to certain places with a firearm which of course excludes authority.

The guy wasn't there to commit a crime. He was there to pick up his granddaughter.

The law is wrong. There should never be a crime to posses or carry a firearm. The crime should be what is illegally done with the firearm, not the possession of the firearm.

Had there been a real criminal at the school this man could have prevented the criminal from doing a lot of harm. Then he would have been a hero. A school posted as a gun free zone is just asking for trouble. We have seen it several times.

You would have better chances at hitting the lottery than this guy being there when a school shooting took place.

The fact is schools are trying to take preemptive measures so that a shooting doesn't happen in the first place. That's an impossible task if allowing strangers to carry guns into the school legally. They don't know who is or is not a threat. So the best thing to stop a shooting is keeping the school gun free, again, with the exception of security, authority, or perhaps an armed teacher or two with additional training outside your standard CCW course.

Ray, I agree with you 99% of the time but I respectfully disagree with you on this.

No sign is ever going to do a darn bit of good. A sign does not provide any meaningful protection but it does serve notice to a potential shooter that he has little to worry about from any of his potential victims.

In any other public setting, I would agree with you. I'm a licensed carrier, and I strongly resent those signs, but I obey them because that's what I agreed to when I singed the application to obtain a license.

Let me put it another way: Let's say a school did allow people with firearms into the building. A guy kills 20 or so students. How do you think the parents would feel knowing the city, school and state allowed this to happen? How about you as a parent? It would be anti-gun media fodder for many years to come.

Now I'm all for security, off duty police, and even specially trained teachers to have firearms in a school to protect our children. But I strongly disagree with anybody being able to walk into a school armed simply because they have a license. Some of these mass killers were first time offenders, and even purchased their firearms legally. So it would be nothing for them to apply and get a carry permit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

And when a court agrees with you, that's what they will have to do. But police don't create the laws, the politicians do. And whether you agree with them or not, they are the sole law creators.

The police do not take an oath to interpret the Constitution, that's what our courts are for. The police enforce the laws created by the politicians whether you or they agree with them or not. If a police officer starts deciding what laws he will and will not enforce, then it's time for that cop to find a new line of work.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

 

[Flash]

Another example of bat shit crazy gun control laws. "Reasonable" gun control laws are never reasonable.

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

Man arrested with gun, magazines, knife in school in Clarksville

A man who was picking up a student walked into Byrns Darden Elementary School packing a handgun, two spare magazines and a knife on Monday.

School Resource Officers with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office stopped the man and arrested him for possessing a firearm inside an elementary school, according to a news release.

At 3:18 p.m., the 53-year-old man entered the school to pick up a student, according to Sandra Brandon, MCSO spokeswoman. Front office staff noticed what looked to be the outline of a firearm under his clothing and notified the School Resource Officer.

While waiting for the SRO, faculty, staff and administrators monitored the man from the office and remotely via cameras, according to Anthony Jordan, CMCSS spokesman.

The man, who does have a valid handgun carry permit, said he was unaware that it was against the law to carry in the school. The law is posted on the door when entering the school, Brandon said.

I have to say that even I have a problem with this.

First off, you need to know the laws when carrying a concealed weapon, and also have to accept the consequences if you decide to break the law. It doesn't mean you have to approve of the laws, but just abide by them.

The problem here is that if this guy was a kook who did have a permit, allowed to enter the school armed, he could use that permit to carry out a mass murder of students. That's why there's a law against going to certain places with a firearm which of course excludes authority.

The guy wasn't there to commit a crime. He was there to pick up his granddaughter.

The law is wrong. There should never be a crime to posses or carry a firearm. The crime should be what is illegally done with the firearm, not the possession of the firearm.

Had there been a real criminal at the school this man could have prevented the criminal from doing a lot of harm. Then he would have been a hero. A school posted as a gun free zone is just asking for trouble. We have seen it several times.

You would have better chances at hitting the lottery than this guy being there when a school shooting took place.

The fact is schools are trying to take preemptive measures so that a shooting doesn't happen in the first place. That's an impossible task if allowing strangers to carry guns into the school legally. They don't know who is or is not a threat. So the best thing to stop a shooting is keeping the school gun free, again, with the exception of security, authority, or perhaps an armed teacher or two with additional training outside your standard CCW course.

Ray, I agree with you 99% of the time but I respectfully disagree with you on this.

No sign is ever going to do a darn bit of good. A sign does not provide any meaningful protection but it does serve notice to a potential shooter that he has little to worry about from any of his potential victims.

In any other public setting, I would agree with you. I'm a licensed carrier, and I strongly resent those signs, but I obey them because that's what I agreed to when I singed the application to obtain a license.

Let me put it another way: Let's say a school did allow people with firearms into the building. A guy kills 20 or so students. How do you think the parents would feel knowing the city, school and state allowed this to happen? How about you as a parent? It would be anti-gun media fodder for many years to come.

Now I'm all for security, off duty police, and even specially trained teachers to have firearms in a school to protect our children. But I strongly disagree with anybody being able to walk into a school armed simply because they have a license. Some of these mass killers were first time offenders, and even purchased their firearms legally. So it would be nothing for them to apply and get a carry permit.

Ray, I don't think restrictions on carrying will have any effect on school shootings.The bad guys will do it regardless of the laws or signs or good intentions of the government to prevent them from committing a crime.

All those silly laws do is make it difficult for law abiding citizens like the Grandpa just trying to pick up his granddaughter..

When I was in High School there were very few laws against carrying on campus. The students kept guns in their vehicles and no parent would have been arrested for concealed carry while picking up child. Everything was fine.

I posted that story because it is a great example of how "reasonable" gun control is not reasonable. Never trust Liberals with our Liberty.

I have a concealed weapon permit like you. I obey the stupid laws but I think they are un-Constutional in addition to being worthless.

Like I said earlier, you and I agree on almost everything so lets just agree to disagree on this.

 

[Flash]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You:

It's alive. IT'S ALIVE!!

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong; laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not infringe on any rights.

 

[Flash]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong; laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not infringe on any rights.

So, Dred Scott's rights were not being infringed?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

The Heller Court did not address the issue of what level of judicial review to apply to firearm regulatory measures – which means that it did not mandate that strict scrutiny alone be used.

The Heller Court addressed solely the regulation of handguns, not semi-automatic rifles and carbines such as the AR 15; and it did not review the Constitutionally of AWBs.

The Court struck down the DC handgun ban because it denied citizens access to “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” That handguns are so popular and ubiquitous the prohibition of their possession is clearly un-Constitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.”

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

The Heller Court did not address the issue of what level of judicial review to apply to firearm regulatory measures – which means that it did not mandate that strict scrutiny alone be used.

The Heller Court addressed solely the regulation of handguns, not semi-automatic rifles and carbines such as the AR 15; and it did not review the Constitutionally of AWBs.

The Court struck down the DC handgun ban because it denied citizens access to “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” That handguns are so popular and ubiquitous the prohibition of their possession is clearly un-Constitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.”

So, again, Dred Scott's rights were not being infringed?

.

 

[Flash]

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong; laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not infringe on any rights.

The NFA laws infringed the shit out of my rights. The Miller case that addressed the constitutionally of the NFA law did not apply strict scrutiny. Not only that but the judgement was partially based upon confusion.

The problem we have is that the commie states have enacted a shitload of very oppressive laws and the courts have not either ruled on the constitutionally or have applied very lax scrutiny. For instance, as good as the Heller and McDonald cases were they did not fix the structural problem of massive government infringement.

I am hoping that the Evil Moon Bat Witch Ginsburg kicks the bucket real soon and Trump can replace her with a Conservative Justice and then they can start undoing all the oppression that these filthy commie states have done to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All depends on what you deliberately cause others to do?
If for example, you are in a play on stage, and when you yell "fire" no one panics because they know it is not real, then it is not illegal.
But if you deliberately act in such as way as to cause unnecessary harm and panic, that would be illegal.
However, it is also local laws that would be used to determine if legal or not.

You will never be charged for yelling fire you might be charged with inciting a riot or some sort of endangerment.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think the fire in a crowded theater is a good example to use.
It shows how words can be harmful to others, and it also shows that it is local laws that cover punishment for that potential harm.
The old catch all is likely "Disorderly Conduct".
And the point is people have to act responsibly.

The fact the argument should not have been sufficient to uphold the Alien and Sedition Act does not mean the argument should never be used.

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

 

[Blues Man]

You will never be charged for yelling fire you might be charged with inciting a riot or some sort of endangerment.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think the fire in a crowded theater is a good example to use.
It shows how words can be harmful to others, and it also shows that it is local laws that cover punishment for that potential harm.
The old catch all is likely "Disorderly Conduct".
And the point is people have to act responsibly.

The fact the argument should not have been sufficient to uphold the Alien and Sedition Act does not mean the argument should never be used.

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think the fire in a crowded theater is a good example to use.
It shows how words can be harmful to others, and it also shows that it is local laws that cover punishment for that potential harm.
The old catch all is likely "Disorderly Conduct".
And the point is people have to act responsibly.

The fact the argument should not have been sufficient to uphold the Alien and Sedition Act does not mean the argument should never be used.

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think the fire in a crowded theater is a good example to use.
It shows how words can be harmful to others, and it also shows that it is local laws that cover punishment for that potential harm.
The old catch all is likely "Disorderly Conduct".
And the point is people have to act responsibly.

The fact the argument should not have been sufficient to uphold the Alien and Sedition Act does not mean the argument should never be used.

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think causing any sort of panic in a crowded place can and does, and I think obsessing over a narrow focus on specific wording just reveals that you know you're wrong on the broader issue, and you're trying to avoid that fact.

 

[Rigby5]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.