Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 12 Jan 2010, 14:13:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pablonite', 'I') read somewhere Americans need to report firearm ownership on their 2009 tax return, anyone heard about that or was it a joke?
Joke. Or screaming loon paranoia. :) link
Ludi
 

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby pablonite » Tue 12 Jan 2010, 14:47:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'J')oke. Or screaming loon paranoia. :) link
Heh, I don't know anything about gun control in America. The idea of your government knowing more or less who owns guns and who doesn't is not into the realm of raving loon paranoia is it?

gun control It looks simple enough for now though.

Anyway, "they" would surely have a large "watchlist" at this point through a shared database? Up here in Canuckistan not everyone registered their firearms when the law came in. Some gun collectors had problems and there was even reports of the database being hacked and gun owners being robbed of large collections.

I think the people are outgunned by their respective corpocracies at this point anyway - especially in America for obvious reasons, relegated to free speech zones far away from the big decisions.
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 03:00:00

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby dinopello » Fri 15 Jan 2010, 15:27:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jotapay', 'A')renas' behavior should result in criminal charges.


Your wish was answered

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')ilbert Arenas was charged Thursday with a single count of carrying a pistol without a license, a felony that carries a five-year sentence


He will plead guilty to possession of an unloaded firearm and avoid the 5-year sentence most likely

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e acknowledged that he had brought four guns into D.C. from Virginia and said they were not loaded at any time. Even if he owned the guns legally in Virginia, it is illegal to have them in the District if they are not licensed in the city.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby dinopello » Mon 01 Mar 2010, 15:39:09

2nd Amendment Marchers having an effect...

Virginia set to further loosen gun regulations for bars that serve alcohol

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he General Assembly is poised to loosen up restrictions on guns in bars, clubs and restaurants that serve alcohol despite objections from the hospitality industry and public safety officials.

By this time next year, residents will likely have the right to carry a concealed gun into any eatery, as long as they have the appropriate permit and agree not to consume alcohol.

On Feb. 10, the Senate’s Committee for Courts of Justice voted eight to seven to extend the benefit of "conceal carry" in alcohol-serving establishments to most residents who desire it.


I guess the "agree not to consume alcohol" part is not going to be enforced proactively, but a secondary infraction if caught (you get into a gunfight and are shown to be drunk, you get in trouble)
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby highlander » Wed 03 Mar 2010, 12:30:06

I saw a short clip on the arguments that were laid out before the Supreme court yesterday.
I am stil trying to find the video, but here is what some lawyers think


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... wn/?page=3


Benna Ruth Solomon, deputy corporation counsel for Chicago - which enacted a ban similar to the District's in 1982 - said a challenge to her city's laws would first have to overcome prior court rulings that state the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments

I think you learn in junior high school that local entities cannot over-rule the US constitution.
This is where everybody puts profound words written by another...or not so profound words written by themselves
Highlander 2007
User avatar
highlander
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun 03 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby highlander » Wed 03 Mar 2010, 18:27:27

“The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government,” Benna Ruth Solomon, the city’s attorney said.

cool huh. seems like there are some other "rights" listed there beyond the second amendment
This is where everybody puts profound words written by another...or not so profound words written by themselves
Highlander 2007
User avatar
highlander
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun 03 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby dinopello » Tue 20 Apr 2010, 14:54:15

I'm not sure these guys are actually helping the cause

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he demonstrators brought their guns to Virginia from New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida and elsewhere. Among the group was Tim Hammond, who carried two pistols, a rifle and plenty of ammunition as part of an all-black outfit that included a black tricorn hat. Hammond, who said he flew in from California, told another demonstrator he believes that President Obama is the antichrist.

"If he's not the antichrist, he's pretty close," the second man concurred.

"We're definitely in the end times," Hammond continued. "The rapture, in my opinion, has to be sometime this fall."


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]a new law, signed by Obama, allows them to carry weapons openly on federal parkland
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Apr 2010, 18:53:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')"We're definitely in the end times," Hammond continued. "The rapture, in my opinion, has to be sometime this fall."





That's an excellent prediction.

I wonder if Hammond will lose his faith if he isn't raptured this Fall.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby mattduke » Tue 20 Apr 2010, 19:36:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'O')ne must always obey the laws of the land, even if one thinks the law might be unconstitutional.

Perhaps according to dinopello, but not according to the supreme court.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
User avatar
mattduke
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3591
Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2nd Amendment backers to march on D.C.

Unread postby dinopello » Tue 20 Apr 2010, 20:35:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'O')ne must always obey the laws of the land, even if one thinks the law might be unconstitutional.

Perhaps according to dinopello, but not according to the supreme court.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm


You go! If you get caught violating a law that you proclaim is unconstitutional I think they may lock you up anyway. But, you are afforded the chance to have your case work its way up to the 9 (could take a while). Get 5 of them to agree with you - and you are a free man! Larry Flynt did it .
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Previous

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron