It starts
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
That’s not surprising. The 2nd Circuit has never been 2nd Amendment friendly.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
In that case none of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to the states, which is handy.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
IRONY:
Know why those weapons were developed?
Maybe we should start pushing states to declare a state religion, limiting the exercise of others until the rights guaranteed to be protected that we all signed up for ARE. That would be more effective at waking sheep up to how only some rights are protected.
Can you imagine the outrage if this were for any other of the 10?
February 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Eff that noise! Sideways! The whole thesis, the theme, the burden, the gravamen, the very reason for the existence of the 14th Amendment, was to make the Second Amendment apply to the several States.
If one reads the debates about it in Congress at the time, this is as plain as a pikestaff, or the nose on one’s face, or a ratty old F-150!
February 10th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
P.s. I write as the owner of a ratty old F-150.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Well, perhaps this is good. A necessary precondition to having a circuit split is having someone disagree with you. Instead of a fond hope of getting it one district at a time, now we just need one finding the other way and we’re off to the races.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
OK, what does your passport say? Are you a resident of the state you live in or the federal government? Social security? Federal income tax? (I’m not so sure on that one) 4473 question 11j United States citizenship.
If all these things apply, these burdens, then how can a right NOT apply?
maybe that’s not quite how I mean to phrase it. If I come under the federal government, the supreme law of the land on this issues, and given that the Heller case has (FINALLY) managed to (mostly) read the simple text to mean what it says in regards to an individual right, that is to be protected for ALL citizens under that government, how is it that it does not apply to states?
This is a simple case of filtering, and they’re doing it in reverse. We’re back to square one. again. We have to go educating the dolts over simple language and governmental structures and the source of power.
Power is meant to remain local. if there is a controversy it goes through the laws there, then moves up. The final law says “shall not be infringed” Not “reasonable restrictions” or “in a manner to be prescribed by congress” There’s no hidden anything, no secret codes like in the movies. It means what it says and says what it means.
Government education damns us all. College kills. Law school will kill us all!
Need proof just have a look at the people who wrote the constitution in comparison to the things that the folks in government today come up with.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
As was acknowledged in another blog post somewhere else, by, IIRC, one of the lawyers in Nordyke v. King, the Circuit Courts don’t really have any choice in this area. Unlike the issue of a individual vs collective right, SCOTUS actually has, back even before the jurisprudential wonder of Plessy v Ferguson, addressed the issue of whether the 14th incorporated the 2nd against the states, in Cruikshank. They said it wasn’t.
Of course, at the time, SCOTUS also held that the 14th didn’t incorporate any of the rest of the BoR, either. A whole lot has changed since then.
But, long story short, the Circuits can’t overrule an existing SCOTUS decision. Only SCOTUS can do that.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
New York State civil rights law says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed”, but the courts have ruled otherwise. We have “rights” in New York State like people had “rights” in the Soviet Union; they exist on paper, but not in practice.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
there is always amendment .308
February 11th, 2009 at 1:00 am
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/02/04/protests_allege_injustice_in_umass_stabbing_case/
“AMHERST – To his supporters, Jason Vassell is a victim of a hate crime and a wrongful prosecution, a black student forced to defend himself one year ago against two white intruders in an unprovoked, racially motivated attack.
To prosecutors, the former University of Massachusetts Amherst student used excessive force when he stabbed both men multiple times with a small knife outside his dormitory, and warn against a rush to judgment before all the facts emerge at next month’s trial.”
I don’t know how this wouldn’t fall under castle doctrine, the guy was totally in his rights. Or maybe Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply to black people, I don’t know.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Castle Doctrine in Massachusetts
But the claim by prosecutors is that he used “excessive force”. When you are defending your life, what is “excessive force”?
February 11th, 2009 at 9:23 am
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed”
I submit to you that “cannot” was a poor choice to use there.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:41 am
That idiot tried to have a Second Amendment case about his nunchaku? I get that nunchaku or nunchucks or however you want to spell it are technically arms, but that’s a terrible case to take on the 2nd Circuit with.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
and why is that Caleb?
February 11th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Well, if they can’t understand “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd, why would we expect they could understand “all” in the 14th?