This woman should have the charges dropped for not having a concealed carry permit.

[Vastator]

The Constitution is the highest law. If you will defend open violations of this law on the part of government, then you have no credibility whatsoever in claiming to support the rule of law.

I do not defend violations of the constitution. So that’s settled.

That's a lie, and you know it.

Here, in this very thread, you are openly, blatantly, defending violation of the Second Amendment.

I have not. And unless you believe that people in prison should be able to have guns, even you don’t actually believe that any regulation at all is unconstitutional.
“2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”. District of Columbia v Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570

So now either you think Justice Scalia was corrupt and/or a lying liberal or you think your knowledge of constitutional law is better than his. Either of which is absurd.

And of course, the second amendment inarguably did not apply to the states until passage of the 14th amendment.

Scalia was not infallible. And while disarming a citizen during the course of his incarceration does indeed sound reasonable; the prohibition against firearms ownership, and possession after the sentence is served is not. Not only is it unreasonable, it’s unconstitutional on its face. The determining factor being whether or not the crime can be punishable by more than a years incarceration. However the sentencing standards for a given crime at the state level vary from state, to state. Furthermore an act which may be determined to be Felonius in one state, may not even be a crime in another. So there is inconsistent application of the law at the Federal level; determinate on the state in which the conviction is secured. This flys in the face of equal application under the law.
Furthermore, a life time prohibition against not only firearms ownership; but also the right to vote, conflicts with the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. When one considers how many Felony crimes have nothing to do with either firearms, or voting. This “long standing prohibition”, is anything but long standing; but rather a recent development in American law. And it’s interesting to note the two unalienable rights that were selected for alienation. It wasn’t a prohibition against free speech, the practice of religion, or any other. These two in particular were selected for a reason.
One should really ask themselves what that reason was; and if in fact it is reasonable....

 

[pinqy]

The Constitution is the highest law. If you will defend open violations of this law on the part of government, then you have no credibility whatsoever in claiming to support the rule of law.

I do not defend violations of the constitution. So that’s settled.

That's a lie, and you know it.

Here, in this very thread, you are openly, blatantly, defending violation of the Second Amendment.

I have not. And unless you believe that people in prison should be able to have guns, even you don’t actually believe that any regulation at all is unconstitutional.
“2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”. District of Columbia v Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570

So now either you think Justice Scalia was corrupt and/or a lying liberal or you think your knowledge of constitutional law is better than his. Either of which is absurd.

And of course, the second amendment inarguably did not apply to the states until passage of the 14th amendment.

Scalia was not infallible.

Of course not. And I have disagreed with him on several opinions. But by Bob Blaylock’s position, Scalia was a lying liberal for holding concealed carry permits constitutional. Which is absurd. I also consider it absurd to hold one’s own personal opinion on a subject one is not an expert in to be be more authoritative than an expert’s.

And while disarming a citizen during the course of his incarceration does indeed sound reasonable; the prohibition against firearms ownership, and possession after the sentence is served is not.

It obviously does sound reasonable to a great number of people. My personal opinion is that that should only apply to those who have committed violent crimes on the grounds that they have demonstrated a proclivity towards violence and their untrustworthiness with weapons and have surrendered their right to arms through their own actions.

Not only is it unreasonable, it’s unconstitutional on its face. The determining factor being whether or not the crime can be punishable by more than a year.

But is that punishment for a crime? It is not, because it is not part of sentencing, but rather a separate statute.

Furthermore, a life time prohibition against not only firearms ownership; but also the right to vote, conflicts with the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

While I believe that felons should not be barred from voting, and that even those convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to petition for restoration of their right to bear arms, those both fall under 10th amendment protection of state’s rights.

When one considers how many Felony crimes have nothing to do with either firearms, or voting. This “long standing prohibition”, is anything but long standing; but rather a recent development in American law. And it’s interesting to note the two unalienable rights that were selected for alienation. It wasn’t a prohibition against free speech, the practice of religion, or any other. These two in particular were selected for a reason.
One should really ask themselves what that reason was; and if in fact it is reasonable....

The second amendment absolutely did not apply to the states until after the 14th amendment was ratified. In 1876 was ruled by the Supreme Court in U.S. v Cruikshank that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right and was only a prohibition against Congress.

It wan’t until 2008 that it was ruled an individual right, and even then it wasn’t ruled to apply to the states until 2010 (McDonald v Chicago).

It is my sincere belief that no rights are completely unlimited, especially when it comes to public safety.

Another point: the Heller decision (rightfully imo) ruled that the Militia clause declared purpose, not strict operation. I agree. But at the same time, since The stated purpose is a “well regulated militia,” to me that explicitly allows some regulation of firearms in that not all ownership or usage supports the stated purpose.

And while I personally oppose registration, I don’t think it would be unconstitutional for states to require registration by all members of the militia. I think it would be wrong and unjust, but not unconstitutional.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's a lie, and you know it.

Here, in this very thread, you are openly, blatantly, defending violation of the Second Amendment.

I have not. And unless you believe that people in prison should be able to have guns, even you don’t actually believe that any regulation at all is unconstitutional.
“2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”. District of Columbia v Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570

So now either you think Justice Scalia was corrupt and/or a lying liberal or you think your knowledge of constitutional law is better than his. Either of which is absurd.

And of course, the second amendment inarguably did not apply to the states until passage of the 14th amendment.

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”

Compare to the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers (or rights) belonging to the federal government, to the states, and to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? It does not belong to the federal government. It does not belong to the states. It belongs to the people. And infringement of this right is explicitly forbidden. Nothing in the Second Amendment, nor elsewhere in the Constitution, authorizes any level of government to violate this right. That is what the Second Amendment says. If you don't like it, there is always the Amendment process, by which it can be changed, but until that is done, every act of any level of government which violates this right is an act of corruption and lawlessness, and any public servant who willingly takes part in it is no better than a common criminal.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But by Bob Blaylock’s position, Scalia was a lying liberal for holding concealed carry permits constitutional. Which is absurd. I also consider it absurd to hold one’s own personal opinion on a subject one is not an expert in to be be more authoritative than an expert’s.

Perhaps you should leave it to me to state what my position is, rather than making yourself out to be an even bigger liar than you've already revealed yourself to be.

In any event, I do not need any “experts” to tell me that the Constitution does not mean what it very clearly, unambiguously, explicitly says. True absurdity is found in giving any credence to such “experts”.

 

[pinqy]

But by Bob Blaylock’s position, Scalia was a lying liberal for holding concealed carry permits constitutional. Which is absurd. I also consider it absurd to hold one’s own personal opinion on a subject one is not an expert in to be be more authoritative than an expert’s.

Perhaps you should leave it to me to state what my position is, rather than making yourself out to be an even bigger liar than you've already revealed yourself to be.

My irony meter just exploded.