- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS rejects gun rights appeal
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:09 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:09 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
upheld the San Diego sheriff's
Sounds like the chief LEO for the city to me. Could be San Diego County, I guess. Shouldn't matter.
1
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:11 pm to boogiewoogie1978
Gonna be a Long couple of Generations for the Left by the Time Trump is Finished
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:14 pm to troyt37
quote:
Sounds like the chief LEO for the city to me.
He's the elected LEO of the county.
quote:
Could be San Diego County, I guess.
It is.
quote:
Shouldn't matter.
It does.
Big difference between an elected county sheriff and an appointed city official.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:20 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Big difference between an elected county sheriff and an appointed city official.
How? Even the governor of the state doesn't get to override the Constitution.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:22 pm to troyt37
quote:
How?
How are an elected sheriff and an appointed city official different? That's your question?
quote:
Even the governor of the state doesn't get to override the Constitution.
We aren't talking about the governor.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:23 pm to Pettifogger
quote:That's colossal stupidity.
The states' rights argument falls apart if you believe in a very expansive 2A
The right to bear arms outside a person's home shouldn't be in question at all. The right to BEAR arms inherently means everywhere in the country, EVERYWHERE.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:24 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
That guy really messed up. Deadly Force is a defense only if you or someone are in imminent fear of your life.
And this guy initiated the confrontation. What an idiot.
Just get out of the way and let LEOs do their jobs.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:34 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
How are an elected sheriff and an appointed city official different? That's your question?
As it applies to separating someone from their Constitutional rights, yes that's my question.
Edit to add:
Unless you think it would be acceptable for the county sheriff or the governor to decide that another individual didn't have the right to attorney for some reason.
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:36 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
SCOTUS rejects
Anytime these words come from an appeal over state's rights I'm happy. happy
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:39 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
That guy really messed up. Deadly Force is a defense only if you or someone are in imminent fear of your life.
And this guy initiated the confrontation. What an idiot. Just get out of the way and let LEOs do their jobs.
That is why I posted this. Some action that appears reasonable may get you thrown in jail. Aggravated assault is a felony, 3 years in prison.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:40 pm to troyt37
quote:
As it applies to separating someone from their Constitutional rights, yes that's my question.
OK, then the answer is the same. One of them answers to the people, and one of them doesn't.
Should they have that authority? Well, SCOTUS apparently thinks so.
Either way, they are very much different.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:43 pm to troyt37
quote:
Unless you think it would be acceptable for the county sheriff or the governor to decide that another individual didn't have the right to attorney for some reason.
This isn't a useful comparison.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:50 pm to boogiewoogie1978
This case isn't an issue, there are others in the works that have the potential to undo "May Issue" CCW in California and the other few states thst have it. This case becomes moot when that happens because the Sheriff's discretion will be entirely removed from the process.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 1:52 pm to Clames
quote:
This case isn't an issue, there are others in the works that have the potential to undo "May Issue" CCW in California and the other few states thst have it.
Indeed. There should be nowhere in this country where one person has the authority to dismiss an application without explanation and for any reason.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 2:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
This isn't a useful comparison.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Maybe not useful, but about as direct as possible. If an elected official has no right to stand between one enumerated right, how can they rightfully stand between another?
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 6/26/17 at 2:31 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
The Trump administration had urged the court to review an appellate ruling that restored the rights of two men who had been convicted of non-violent crimes to own guns.
The federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled for the two men. The crimes were classified as misdemeanors, which typically are less serious, but carried potential prison sentences of more than a year. Such prison terms typically are for felonies, more serious crimes. The administration says that the court should have upheld the blanket prohibition on gun ownership in the federal law and rejected case-by-case challenges.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the administration's appeal.
Who did the NRA support in this case, the Trump Administration or the two liberal justices?
Posted on 6/26/17 at 3:05 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
“He’s going to have to articulate to the court why he used deadly force and it will be up to the court to decide” his fate, Treadwell said.
Lock him up
Posted on 6/26/17 at 3:09 pm to bmy
It's weird that all of these "constitutionalists" on the poliboard ignore that the Constitution was created to limit the federal government and not the states. If we are looking at it historically you as an individual have no right to carry a firearm in a state that does not wish for you to do so
Posted on 6/26/17 at 3:26 pm to airfernando
quote:
The right to BEAR arms inherently means everywhere in the country, EVERYWHERE
Does it, because every other right in the Bill of Rights has some level of deviation allowed, I don't think the 2nd is exempt. I love the 2nd Amendment, but I personally don't want to live in a world where someone can take a gun into a bar or crowded sporting arena. If you don't like the strict concealed carry requirements in San Diego, don't go there, just like if you don't like open/concealed carry in most red states, don't go there.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 3:30 pm to troyt37
quote:
direct
No, not really. It's a bad point. Period.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News