Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[Superbadbrutha]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.

.

they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.

Not a race, like black or white

What does that have to do with their origin, what are most folks who come from Algeria and Morocco?

 

[freyasman]

freyasman
..obviously you did not read the links[ facts ] I posted ..yes, they can legally detain you

For what?


In the absence of any criminal activity, what law gives LE the authority to violate a person's 4th Amendment rights?

 

[bodecea]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

I know....the OP showing us that they aren't very bright?

 

[freyasman]

freyasman so you are pro-stupid
..people that have nothing to hide/obey the laws/are NOT stupid would answer the police questions...the cops did not just say ''let's go harass someone -
..that's why Floyd/etc are dead--NOT because of police brutality, but because they are stupid/etc

LE is supposed to be about enforcing the law...... if no laws are being broken, the what are they doing there?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You don't have to provide ID to LE unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot.

Depends on the state you live in.

No it doesn't. There is NO requirement in any state that you even carry any kind of ID on you.

Tell that to the police next time you get pulled over driving your car without an ID on you.

Exactly. You have to produce your DL upon request, as well as proof of insurance and registration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong.

No right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited, including the Second Amendment right:

You're not only a fucking idiot, but a liar, along with the ivy league frat house crooks on the judicial bench.

… shall not be infringed.

Nothing can be more absolute than that. What the eternal damnation of your soul do you think those words mean, if that's not what they mean?

lol

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

It was one of your fellow rightists who ruled that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Don’t like it? Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

I have....this is what he said...the part you want to pretend doesn't exist...

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

And Scalia in Friedman..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III

---

Non sequitur

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, as reaffirmed by the Heller Court.

 

[bodecea]

After this, Gov. Reagan AND the NRA freaked out and pushed the Mulford Act in California.

 

[Decus]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.

.

they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.

Not a race, like black or white

They were Berbers that invaded the Iberian peninsula - so yes they are an ethnicity and you can still find them in North African and elsewhere.

.

 

[freyasman]

You don't have to provide ID to LE unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot.

Depends on the state you live in.

Which states?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All of them have been arrested for exercising their Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

Wrong.

They were arrested because they were in violation of state firearm laws, having nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

freyasman so you are pro-stupid
..people that have nothing to hide/obey the laws/are NOT stupid would answer the police questions...the cops did not just say ''let's go harass someone -
..that's why Floyd/etc are dead--NOT because of police brutality, but because they are stupid/etc

LE is supposed to be about enforcing the law...... if no laws are being broken, the what are they doing there?

How about..ascertaining that no laws are being broken..by the group of armed and uniformed men?
Laws WERE being broken...and they found that out. Good job. I guess if they were on their way to kill some people...you'd be all over the cops for letting them go?

 

[BlackSand]

Depends on the state you live in.

.

I got stopped by a police officer while open carrying (outside my vehicle).
He asked me to surrender my firearm, and I told him I wouldn't, and that he could call his Supervisor to the scene.

He scanned my Driver's License for any outstanding warrants, handed it back,
and told me we wouldn't need to wait for his Supervisor, and I could go on about my business.

You don't have to roll over for the police, but always give them a better option.

.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's the point of owning guns (and why did the Founders see to that) if you can't actually take them out?

Well, if you insist on owning them and are too lazy , stupid, or defiant to follow the laws, then i suppose the only point is to put them on your wall and talk tough on the internet.

 

[struth]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

No they didn't.

yes Moors are what Brits called the folks that lived in the Kingdom of Al-Andalus....now Spain and Portugal

 

[justinacolmena]

Non sequitur

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, as reaffirmed by the Heller Court

Shut up with the pig Latin and go to hell. That's a Communist Party court system.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LE is supposed to be about enforcing the law...... if no laws are being broken, the what are they doing there?

They will always stop for cars stalled on the side of the interstate. Did you not know this? Its a matter of public safety.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Turtlesoup

Pknopp, what the hell is wrong with you. Stop downvoting because someone simply posted the facts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Shut up with the pig Latin and go to hell

That's your fault for not going to college.

 

[freyasman]

You don't have to provide ID to LE unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot.

Depends on the state you live in.

No it doesn't. There is NO requirement in any state that you even carry any kind of ID on you.

Tell that to the police next time you get pulled over driving your car without an ID on you.

Exactly. You have to produce your DL upon request, as well as proof of insurance and registration.

If you're driving, and if you were observed breaking a law.
Otherwise, no.

 

[struth]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.

.

they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.

Not a race, like black or white

What does that have to do with their origin, what are most folks who come from Algeria and Morocco?

Arabs.....a lot of Moors settled their after the fall of the Kingdom of Al-Andalus