Learn to read, none of what posted gives the government the power to revoke rights. Abridge is not equal to revocation. Try harder. Might want learn a new word today, inalienable.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Thomas is an outlier once again.
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
WTF?Learn to read, none of what posted gives the government the power to revoke rights. Abridge is not equal to revocation. Try harder.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center
The National Constitution Center
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.
NO such thing.Might want learn a new word today, inalienable.
Again, that is not the same as revocation. Your lack of vocabulary isn't my problem.WTF?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center
View attachment 966785
The National Constitution Center
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.
NO such thing.
YES, IT IS.Again, that is not the same as revocation.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center
View attachment 966785The National Constitution Center
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens’ private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens. As long as all citizens have the same property rights, for example, it does not matter what those rights are.
Your lack of comprehension, isn't my problem.Your lack of vocabulary isn't my problem.
Wrong, revocation is not a limitation, it is the removal of. The government may revoke privileges, like driving, they may not revoke rights. Stop lying.YES, IT IS.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Center
View attachment 966785
The National Constitution Center
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens' private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens.
On this interpretation, to abridge one citizens’ private-law privilege or immunities is to limit those rights relative to those of other citizens. As long as all citizens have the same property rights, for example, it does not matter what those rights are.
Your lack of comprehension, isn't my problem.
I'm torn on this one. I have appreciated and admired Justice Thomas's perspective in most things, but this time I can't unequivocally say I agree with him.Not really....
Say you got in a fight in a bar, went a bit overboard, and really cleaned someone's clock and was charged with say 2nd degree assault.....not even a felony.
You go to court and there is nothing preventing an activist judge or even a magistrate from arbitrarily denying your gun rights and pulling your carry permit.....Even ordering the removal guns from your home.
The kicker here is that there is no felony charge and no conviction yet but no time limit as far as denying you your 2nd amendment rights, could be anything from a month till forever.
Meanwhile you are disarmed and as luck would have it your home gets invaded by FJB's new friends and there you are with no gun to defend hearth and home.
That also extends to to family members residing in your home.
I posted on another thread that a close relative and her teenage daughter were threatened with a loaded handgun by her drunken estranged husband she was in the process of divorcing. We know the gun was loaded because he shot out a window to demonstrate it. We know the threats were valid because several neighbors heard them. The judge issued a strong restraining order and he would not have to go to jail if he obeyed the restraining order and gave up all guns in the house.
In that case there was no way that nut should be allowed to have a gun.
And I am a strong constitutionalist and a strong second amendment person.
Meathead
Diamond Member
Why do you hate blacks with an IQ in triple digits? Do you perceive them as acting white?If you read his history Thomas had an incredibly fucked up childhood which probably explains his love for inflicting cruelty and misery on others
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
Bullshit.In addition, the only
process required before that revocation is a hearing on the
underlying court order.
THAT is due process.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 24,128
- 16,209
- 1,405
Exactly. The devil is usually in the details with these laws.Not really....
Say you got in a fight in a bar, went a bit overboard, and really cleaned someone's clock and was charged with say 2nd degree assault.....not even a felony.
You go to court and there is nothing preventing an activist judge or even a magistrate from arbitrarily denying your gun rights and pulling your carry permit.....Even ordering the removal guns from your home.
The kicker here is that there is no felony charge and no conviction yet but no time limit as far as denying you your 2nd amendment rights, could be anything from a month till forever.
Meanwhile you are disarmed and as luck would have it your home gets invaded by FJB's new friends and there you are with no gun to defend hearth and home.
That also extends to to family members residing in your home.
When you read the fine print you always find mission creep that makes the law undesirable even if the main body of the law is good.
Holy fuck.Wrong, revocation is not a limitation,
It's the epitome of limitation.........WOW.
Really Dumbass?it is the removal of. The government may revoke privileges, like driving, they may not revoke rights. Stop lying.
18 U.S. CODE § 922G - FELON WITH A FIREARM
Many states have specific laws restricting or revoking gun ownership or possession rights for people convicted of a felony.However, the federal criminal code also contains similar and expanded restrictions on firearm possession for convicted felons and other individuals at the federal level. This is commonly referred to as the "felon with a firearm" or "felon in possession of a firearm" law defined under Title 18 U.S.C. 922g.
Violating this law is a felony in itself. Moreover, if convicted, you could face up to 10 years in federal prison—and potentially much more if you qualify for certain sentencing enhancements.
How does that make it Constitutional? It doesn't, you commie lemming.Holy fuck.
It's the epitome of limitation.........WOW.
Really Dumbass?
18 U.S. CODE § 922G - FELON WITH A FIREARM
Many states have specific laws restricting or revoking gun ownership or possession rights for people convicted of a felony.
However, the federal criminal code also contains similar and expanded restrictions on firearm possession for convicted felons and other individuals at the federal level. This is commonly referred to as the "felon with a firearm" or "felon in possession of a firearm" law defined under Title 18 U.S.C. 922g.
Violating this law is a felony in itself. Moreover, if convicted, you could face up to 10 years in federal prison—and potentially much more if you qualify for certain sentencing enhancements.
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 34,994
- 23,055
- 1,845
Why do you hate blacks with an IQ in triple digits? Do you perceive them as acting white?
Because intelligent blacks leave the plantation.
WTF?How does that make it Constitutional?'
It was enacted in in 1891 and chapter 18 was enacted in 1971.
So, why hasn't any communist teabagger, challenged the law?It doesn't, you commie lemming.
So no federal has ever been deemed Unconstitutional? Try harder.WTF?
It was enacted in in 1891 and chapter 18 was enacted in 1971.
So, why hasn't any communist teabagger, challenged the law?
Maybe you need to.So no federal has ever been deemed Unconstitutional? Try harder.
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 34,994
- 23,055
- 1,845
WTF?
It was enacted in in 1891 and chapter 18 was enacted in 1971.
So, why hasn't any communist teabagger, challenged the law?
People of multiple political parties finding common ground around pushing for tax reform, equals Communist, in your mind.
Do you see why most people find you extremely ignorant?
WTF?People of multiple political parties finding common ground around pushing for tax reform, equals Communist, in your mind.
Tax reform?
You just showed yours, moron.Do you see why most people find you extremely ignorant?
Avoiding the question shows your ignorance and laziness. Sad.Maybe you need to.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 225
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 635
- Replies
- 159
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 85
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8370
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-