PDA

View Full Version : Fourth Circuit begins gutting Constitution



Scrounger
02-24-2017, 11:15 PM
As most of you know Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland law banning so-called assault weapons and “high capacity” (read: standard capacity) magazines.

Well, if you live in the Carolinas, Virginia West Virginia or Maryland, you have no constitutional protections with respect to the Second Amendment. If you'd rather surrender than fight, I'll buy any parts or mags for 60 to 75 cents on the dollar. If your militia stands against this, I'll stand with you for free.

Anyway, this is my take away from all of this:

Judge William Traxler wrote in his blistering dissent, “The majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” They did this by inventing a new test: whether a weapon is “most useful in military service.” We hope this case makes it to the Supreme Court so the justices can finish what they started with Heller — that is, protect the Second Amendment. Until then, Maryland can trample constitutional freedom, and appellate courts will be left to defiantly dismantle Heller one ruling at a time."

This case is a classic example of the courts legislating from the bench. Let's check the precedent on this very point of law:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

If any of you have studied gun laws, you know the Miller decision that came out of the United States Supreme Court. Miller was convicted of having a sawed off shotgun, but pay attention to this part of the HOLDING:


"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939)

Holy sh!+!!! There we have it. An AR 15, M1A, AK, etc. are the most protected class of weapons by virtue of the Miller interpretation. I highlighted that part from the holding "at this time" because short barreled shotguns were employed in Vietnam, so even the Miller ban no longer applies. Add this to the Heller and McDonald and one wonders what the judges on the 4th Circuit are smoking. They damn sure aren't applying any standing precedents.

Croft
02-24-2017, 11:25 PM
The twin goals of globalists... open the borders and disarm the populace. It equals total power for them. Oh and educate the morons to scream racist at anyone who objects.

The fight just goes on.

Common Sense
02-24-2017, 11:29 PM
Teh globalists is comin fer yer guns. European commies could be at yer door any second now.

Crepitus
02-24-2017, 11:51 PM
As most of you know Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland law banning so-called assault weapons and “high capacity” (read: standard capacity) magazines.

Well, if you live in the Carolinas, Virginia West Virginia or Maryland, you have no constitutional protections with respect to the Second Amendment. If you'd rather surrender than fight, I'll buy any parts or mags for 60 to 75 cents on the dollar. If your militia stands against this, I'll stand with you for free.

Anyway, this is my take away from all of this:

Judge William Traxler wrote in his blistering dissent, “The majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” They did this by inventing a new test: whether a weapon is “most useful in military service.” We hope this case makes it to the Supreme Court so the justices can finish what they started with Heller — that is, protect the Second Amendment. Until then, Maryland can trample constitutional freedom, and appellate courts will be left to defiantly dismantle Heller one ruling at a time."

This case is a classic example of the courts legislating from the bench. Let's check the precedent on this very point of law:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

If any of you have studied gun laws, you know the Miller decision that came out of the United States Supreme Court. Miller was convicted of having a sawed off shotgun, but pay attention to this part of the HOLDING:


"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939)

Holy sh!+!!! There we have it. An AR 15, M1A, AK, etc. are the most protected class of weapons by virtue of the Miller interpretation. I highlighted that part from the holding "at this time" because short barreled shotguns were employed in Vietnam, so even the Miller ban no longer applies. Add this to the Heller and McDonald and one wonders what the judges on the 4th Circuit are smoking. They damn sure aren't applying any standing precedents.







The twin goals of globalists... open the borders and disarm the populace. It equals total power for them. Oh and educate the morons to scream racist at anyone who objects.

The fight just goes on.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/9tojedo1cjxNm/200w.webp#24

donttread
02-25-2017, 06:44 AM
As most of you know Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland law banning so-called assault weapons and “high capacity” (read: standard capacity) magazines.

Well, if you live in the Carolinas, Virginia West Virginia or Maryland, you have no constitutional protections with respect to the Second Amendment. If you'd rather surrender than fight, I'll buy any parts or mags for 60 to 75 cents on the dollar. If your militia stands against this, I'll stand with you for free.

Anyway, this is my take away from all of this:

Judge William Traxler wrote in his blistering dissent, “The majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” They did this by inventing a new test: whether a weapon is “most useful in military service.” We hope this case makes it to the Supreme Court so the justices can finish what they started with Heller — that is, protect the Second Amendment. Until then, Maryland can trample constitutional freedom, and appellate courts will be left to defiantly dismantle Heller one ruling at a time."

This case is a classic example of the courts legislating from the bench. Let's check the precedent on this very point of law:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

If any of you have studied gun laws, you know the Miller decision that came out of the United States Supreme Court. Miller was convicted of having a sawed off shotgun, but pay attention to this part of the HOLDING:


"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939)

Holy sh!+!!! There we have it. An AR 15, M1A, AK, etc. are the most protected class of weapons by virtue of the Miller interpretation. I highlighted that part from the holding "at this time" because short barreled shotguns were employed in Vietnam, so even the Miller ban no longer applies. Add this to the Heller and McDonald and one wonders what the judges on the 4th Circuit are smoking. They damn sure aren't applying any standing precedents.






If only people would start learning about and defending their own Constitution ahead of their chossen "party" .

patrickt
02-25-2017, 07:14 AM
When the court ignores the Constitution another court can reverse their decision. That's why the liberals have decided they have to totally rid of of the odious Constitution that restricts government power. For the liberals, the government is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful in spite of evidence to the contrary.

DGUtley
02-25-2017, 07:37 AM
As most of you know Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland law banning so-called assault weapons and “high capacity” (read: standard capacity) magazines.

Well, if you live in the Carolinas, Virginia West Virginia or Maryland, you have no constitutional protections with respect to the Second Amendment. If you'd rather surrender than fight, I'll buy any parts or mags for 60 to 75 cents on the dollar. If your militia stands against this, I'll stand with you for free.

Anyway, this is my take away from all of this:

Judge William Traxler wrote in his blistering dissent, “The majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” They did this by inventing a new test: whether a weapon is “most useful in military service.” We hope this case makes it to the Supreme Court so the justices can finish what they started with Heller — that is, protect the Second Amendment. Until then, Maryland can trample constitutional freedom, and appellate courts will be left to defiantly dismantle Heller one ruling at a time."

This case is a classic example of the courts legislating from the bench. Let's check the precedent on this very point of law:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

If any of you have studied gun laws, you know the Miller decision that came out of the United States Supreme Court. Miller was convicted of having a sawed off shotgun, but pay attention to this part of the HOLDING:


"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939)

Holy sh!+!!! There we have it. An AR 15, M1A, AK, etc. are the most protected class of weapons by virtue of the Miller interpretation. I highlighted that part from the holding "at this time" because short barreled shotguns were employed in Vietnam, so even the Miller ban no longer applies. Add this to the Heller and McDonald and one wonders what the judges on the 4th Circuit are smoking. They damn sure aren't applying any standing precedents.





1. Heller indicated that your reading of the Miller decision was too broad and/or Heller narrowed Miller (either way you want to look at it is fine with me). "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right." To that extent, Miller has been modified.

2. The Arkansas case is not binding precedent, except in Arkansas.

3. You are right, though, that the judges are trying to do everything that they can to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment. Look at the https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf dissent by Scalia. Thomas and Scalia were besides themselves with what the 7th Did.

4. This is precisely why this was a one-issue election for me: The Supreme Court.

Scrounger
02-25-2017, 07:48 AM
1. Heller indicated that your reading of the Miller decision was too broad and/or Heller narrowed Heller (either way you want to look at it is fine with me). "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right." To that extent, Miller has been modified.

2. The Arkansas case is not binding precedent, except in Arkansas.

3. You are right, though, that the judges are trying to do everything that they can to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment. Look at the https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf dissent by Scalia. Thomas and Scalia were besides themselves with what the 7th Did.

4. This is precisely why this was a one-issue election for me: The Supreme Court.

Did I say that the Arkansas case is binding precedent? I don't think so. HOWEVER, absent any contrary precedent in another jurisdiction, it is persuasive authority. And so, the United States Supreme Court, in Miller, upheld standing precedents. THAT made it binding on ALL lower courts in America. You're welcome for the lesson.

DGUtley
02-25-2017, 07:55 AM
Did I say that the Arkansas case is binding precedent? I don't think so. HOWEVER, absent any contrary precedent in another jurisdiction, it is persuasive authority. And so, the United States Supreme Court, in Miller, upheld standing precedents. THAT made it binding on ALL lower courts in America. You're welcome for the lesson.

You did not say it was binding precedent, Pre-Heller. You are wrong that the Supreme Court upheld Miller and made it binding on all lower courts in America. It cited it with approval as modified, which doesn't make it binding. Miller is not binding on all lower courts in the US.

Adelaide
02-25-2017, 08:03 AM
I would assume that this would get struck down by a higher court; it isn't consistent with the Constitution.

Peter1469
02-25-2017, 08:06 AM
I would assume that this would get struck down by a higher court; it isn't consistent with the Constitution.

We will see. In Heller and McDonald (the Chicago case) the Court said that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right but that states can place some limits on the 2nd Amendment. They just did not set those limits.

I do not think these weapons could be banned based on the 2nd Amendment and history.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 08:20 AM
`
`
The actual ruling (pdf) - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3469330/Decision-upholding-Maryland-s-weapons-ban.pdf I depend upon academic experts in law for my information, as opposed to online legal experts. I agree with the 4th Circuit's decision.

Peter1469
02-25-2017, 08:23 AM
`
`
The actual ruling (pdf) - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3469330/Decision-upholding-Maryland-s-weapons-ban.pdf I depend upon academic experts in law for my information, as opposed to online legal experts. I agree with the 4th Circuit's decision.


What pages of the decision are you relying for the holding of the case?

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 09:35 AM
What pages of the decision are you relying for the holding of the case?
`
I read some parts, skimmed over others. Then, not being a lawyer myself, I sought out academic insights to this decision. The legal rationale on both affirmative and dissenting sides was sound. The pivotal point was the....
`




"I concur in the result reached by the majority with respect to the vagueness challenge, for the reasons expressed in the now-vacated panel opinion. See id. at 190-92."
`
The justices all acknowledge, this was a weak case......or at least that's the way I see it.

Peter1469
02-25-2017, 09:40 AM
`
I read some parts, skimmed over others. Then, not being a lawyer myself, I sought out academic insights to this decision. The legal rationale on both affirmative and dissenting sides was sound. The pivotal point was the....
`



"I concur in the result reached by the majority with respect to the vagueness challenge, for the reasons expressed in the now-vacated panel opinion. See id. at 190-92."



`
The justices all acknowledge, this was a weak case......or at least that's the way I see it.
Criminal law must clearly outline was it takes to be a violation. If not, a court may find that the law is vauge either to the specific defendant or in total.

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 09:46 AM
I would assume that this would get struck down by a higher court; it isn't consistent with the Constitution.
Given its clear inconsistency with the Constitution why do these idiot judges still have their jobs? The Congress needs to disestablish the courts and start over.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 09:51 AM
Criminal law must clearly outline was it takes to be a violation. If not, a court may find that the law is vauge either to the specific defendant or in total.
`
One thing that was brought up in the decision I posted was basically the failure of the legislatures, to enact unambiguous laws. The courts are justifiably umbraged that they are taking the heat for deciding on lazy ass and deceitful politicians passing laws that ultimately do not pass the constitutional muster.

Peter1469
02-25-2017, 09:56 AM
`
One thing that was brought up in the decision I posted was basically the failure of the legislatures, to enact unambiguous laws. The courts are justifiably umbraged that they are taking the heat for deciding on lazy ass and deceitful politicians passing laws that ultimately do not pass the constitutional muster.
That should have been SCOTUS's response to Obamacare.

Scrounger
02-25-2017, 04:08 PM
`
`
The actual ruling (pdf) - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3469330/Decision-upholding-Maryland-s-weapons-ban.pdf I depend upon academic experts in law for my information, as opposed to online legal experts. I agree with the 4th Circuit's decision.

I'm not an "online expert." I can only tell you what the judge who dissented said. He said the court invented new law. So, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that is not the job of the Supreme Court.

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 04:13 PM
`
One thing that was brought up in the decision I posted was basically the failure of the legislatures, to enact unambiguous laws. The courts are justifiably umbraged that they are taking the heat for deciding on lazy ass and deceitful politicians passing laws that ultimately do not pass the constitutional muster.
The right answer is to return the law to the Legislature for clarification.

Scrounger
02-25-2017, 04:15 PM
You did not say it was binding precedent, Pre-Heller. You are wrong that the Supreme Court upheld Miller and made it binding on all lower courts in America. It cited it with approval as modified, which doesn't make it binding. Miller is not binding on all lower courts in the US.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Miller lost his case based upon the fact that his weapon did not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, ..."


I'm sorry, but a HOLDING in a United States Supreme Court case is binding on ALL lower courts.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/WHICH_COURT_IS_BINDING_Painter-and-Mayer-FINAL.pdf

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 04:29 PM
4. This is precisely why this was a one-issue election for me: The Supreme Court.
Eventually, this will come to bloodshed. The Constitution means nothing when the courts can act unconstitutionally with impunity. When the law becomes lawless the final remaining option is to decide the matter through force of arms.

So let's see what happens with President Trump. He buys time but does not resolve the substantial underlying problem.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 04:33 PM
I'm not an "online expert." I can only tell you what the judge who dissented said. He said the court invented new law. So, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that is not the job of the Supreme Court.
`
Can you point out the exact quote in the decision where the justice says that?

exotix
02-25-2017, 04:35 PM
I'm not see'ng the big deal ... the GOP just allowed the severely mentally-ill to conduct Sandy Hooks ..



http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1487167648/8_iu2dep.png

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 04:38 PM
I'm not see'ng the big deal ... the GOP just allowed the severely mentally-ill to conduct Sandy Hooks ..
Fake news.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 04:42 PM
The right answer is to return the law to the Legislature for clarification.
`
Not really. That's your opinion. The 4th is a federal circuit court of appeals. If this decision is not appealed to SCOTUS, then all the 4th is doing is reaffirming what the lower courts (federal judge) decision. No new constitutional ground is broken.

Peter1469
02-25-2017, 04:42 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about. Miller lost his case based upon the fact that his weapon did not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, ..."


I'm sorry, but a HOLDING in a United States Supreme Court case is binding on ALL lower courts.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/WHICH_COURT_IS_BINDING_Painter-and-Mayer-FINAL.pdf

A holding is indeed binding.

Dicta however is not.

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 04:59 PM
`
Not really. That's your opinion. The 4th is a federal circuit court of appeals. If this decision is not appealed to SCOTUS, then all the 4th is doing is reaffirming what the lower courts (federal judge) decision. No new constitutional ground is broken.
Yes. Really. If the law is too vague then return the law to the legislature that created it.

This supports my belief that the Federal courts are anti-American, anti-American citizen and anti-Constitutional. The federal court system cannot be saved. It is tyrannical and must be disestablished. As with all tyrannies there comes a time to end it. Now is the time.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 05:07 PM
Yes. Really. If the law is too vague then return the law to the legislature that created it. This supports my belief that the Federal courts are anti-American, anti-American citizen and anti-Constitutional. the federal court system cannot be saved. it is tyrannical and must be disestablished. As with all tyrannies there comes a time to end it. Now is the time.
`
That's not the courts place. It has no constitutional duty, power or responsibility to ask a legislating body to reconsider the law. It either passes the constitutional muster or it doesn't. That's its job. It can give an opinion but such an opinion would not be legally binding.

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 05:09 PM
`
That's not the courts place. It has no constitutional duty, power or responsibility to ask a legislating body to reconsider the law. It either passes the constitutional muster or it doesn't. That's its job. It can give an opinion but such an opinion would not be legally binding.
The judicial tyranny is growing.

If it says the legislature provided a law that is not specific enough it has an obligation to return to the legislature to adjust the law. It does not get to deprive all Americans from our rights instead.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 05:24 PM
`
`
Come on. Look back to Brown v. The Board of Education. 1953. They didn't send the case back to the states legislature, they decided the case on it's own merits. Same for Roe v. Wade. If lawmakers pass laws that usurp constitutional protections, then it's up to the courts to decide that. Justices can only rule on the evidence that has been presented to them. Politicians knowingly pass laws they know are unconstitutional just to appease their constituents.

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 05:50 PM
`
`
Come on. Look back to Brown v. The Board of Education. 1953. They didn't send the case back to the states legislature, they decided the case on it's own merits. Same for Roe v. Wade. If lawmakers pass laws that usurp constitutional protections, then it's up to the courts to decide that. Justices can only rule on the evidence that has been presented to them. Politicians knowingly pass laws they know are unconstitutional just to appease their constituents.
Those are fine examples of what happens within the judicial branch oversteps its bounds.

Brown, for example, overturned an earlier activist, tyrannical court that decided separate but equal was Constitutional. It was an unconstitutional act by a tyrannical court.

Roe v Wade is another example of the court behaving in a tyrannical way. The court has no business creating new laws. That is why we have legislatures. Most of the long-term damage done to our society is due to radical, activist judges behaving as judicial tyrants.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 06:07 PM
Those are fine examples of what happens within the judicial branch oversteps its bounds. Brown, for example, overturned an earlier activist, tyrannical court that decided separate but equal was Constitutional. It was an unconstitutional act by a tyrannical court. Roe v Wade is another example of the court behaving in a tyrannical way. The court has no business creating new laws. That is why we have legislatures. Most of the long-term damage done to our society is due to radical, activist judges behaving as judicial tyrants.
`
Then so be it. We disagree. I'm not discussing this because I think I'm right; I just want to state my rationale is based on historic jurisprudence.

AZ Jim
02-25-2017, 06:11 PM
`
I read some parts, skimmed over others. Then, not being a lawyer myself, I sought out academic insights to this decision. The legal rationale on both affirmative and dissenting sides was sound. The pivotal point was the....
`



"I concur in the result reached by the majority with respect to the vagueness challenge, for the reasons expressed in the now-vacated panel opinion. See id. at 190-92."



`
The justices all acknowledge, this was a weak case......or at least that's the way I see it. The fact that you are NOT a lawyer, gives you credibility.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 06:17 PM
The fact that you are NOT a lawyer, gives you credibility.
`
Very astute observation.

MisterVeritis
02-25-2017, 06:22 PM
`
Then so be it. We disagree. I'm not discussing this because I think I'm right; I just want to state my rationale is based on historic jurisprudence.
Cool. I read everything you post.

I write based on what I believe is right.

AeonPax
02-25-2017, 06:26 PM
Cool. I read everything you post. I write based on what I believe is right.
`
I would expect no less from you. :icon_thumleft:

Scrounger
02-25-2017, 06:27 PM
`
Can you point out the exact quote in the decision where the justice says that?

I did quote it. It's in the first posting on this thread. It's in the fourth paragraph and it is italicized.

Scrounger
02-25-2017, 06:34 PM
I'm not see'ng the big deal ... the GOP just allowed the severely mentally-ill to conduct Sandy Hooks ..



http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1487167648/8_iu2dep.png

That is absolute, utter rubbish. We're having a grown up conversation and you interrupt with that pabulum puking nonsense that is absolutely false. Congress prevented the government from taking away Rights without Due Process. Get back on point.

Scrounger
02-25-2017, 06:37 PM
`
Not really. That's your opinion. The 4th is a federal circuit court of appeals. If this decision is not appealed to SCOTUS, then all the 4th is doing is reaffirming what the lower courts (federal judge) decision. No new constitutional ground is broken.

At least one of the judges on that case disagrees with you. Now, a new law has been invented so that the states in the Fourth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals have a green light to outlaw weapons that have been legal to own since the ratification of the Constitution.

AeonPax
02-26-2017, 02:37 AM
I did quote it. It's in the first posting on this thread. It's in the fourth paragraph and it is italicized.
`
Link to source.

Scrounger
02-26-2017, 08:18 PM
`
Link to source.

You're joking right? You can't verify with Google?

http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/isysquery/ea912edf-4027-4b8a-aa83-7e99f87b5b3a/1/doc/

AeonPax
02-26-2017, 09:50 PM
You're joking right? You can't verify with Google?http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/isysquery/ea912edf-4027-4b8a-aa83-7e99f87b5b3a/1/doc/
`
Whatever.
`
`

https://s12.postimg.org/53caddeu5/Cap_353.jpg

Scrounger
02-26-2017, 10:35 PM
`
Whatever.
`
`

https://s12.postimg.org/53caddeu5/Cap_353.jpg



Aeon Pax:

I will apologize to you because I work in the legal field. When I'm on this board there are a LOT of pretenders who want you to believe they know something about the law. IF they did, they would have chimed in and told you all about this case. This thread kind of separates the real deal from the poseurs.

So, I did not realize that you cannot access this stuff as easily as I can. When you subscribe to legal sites this is much easier. Anyway, I tried this on another computer with regular Internet. Here is what you do:

1) Go to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals website:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/

2) Use their search feature (upper right hand corner) and look for 16 -1222 It will come up with 0 documents, but give you another dialog box. It says Find Opinions Text Search. Click that

3) Click on the Advanced Search feature in the center of the page, toward the bottom

4) In the top dialog box (with all the words), type in Second Amendment

5) In the Return files updated bring down the box and click on the last month

6) Check the thesaurus feature

7) Click search

8) At the top entry you should see 16 -1222 Click the one at the top left as it contains ALL the information, including the dissent.

I'm sorry this is so hard to find, but it cannot be accessed any other way unless you subscribe to Westlaw or something like that you are s.o.l

Even the 4th Circuit website was uncompromising when it came to getting all the info. But, there you go.

McCool
02-26-2017, 10:52 PM
Teh globalists is comin fer yer guns. European commies could be at yer door any second now. I'm more worried about the occupiers.

AeonPax
02-26-2017, 11:09 PM
Aeon Pax:I will apologize to you because I work in the legal field. When I'm on this board there are a LOT of pretenders who want you to believe they know something about the law. IF they did, they would have chimed in and told you all about this case. This thread kind of separates the real deal from the poseurs.So, I did not realize that you cannot access this stuff as easily as I can. When you subscribe to legal sites this is much easier. Anyway, I tried this on another computer with regular Internet. Here is what you do:1) Go to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals website: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/ 2) Use their search feature (upper right hand corner) and look for 16 -1222 It will come up with 0 documents, but give you another dialog box. It says Find Opinions Text Search. Click that 3) Click on the Advanced Search feature in the center of the page, toward the bottom 4) In the top dialog box (with all the words), type in Second Amendment 5) In the Return files updated bring down the box and click on the last month 6) Check the thesaurus feature 7) Click search 8) At the top entry you should see 16 -1222 Click the one at the top left as it contains ALL the information, including the dissent. I'm sorry this is so hard to find, but it cannot be accessed any other way unless you subscribe to Westlaw or something like that you are s.o.l Even the 4th Circuit website was uncompromising when it came to getting all the info. But, there you go.
`
Concentrate first on how to effectively post a link.

Thanks.

Ethereal
02-27-2017, 04:11 AM
Teh globalists is comin fer yer guns.

They really are though. Why you find this so hard to believe is a mystery.

Scrounger
02-27-2017, 07:47 AM
`
Concentrate first on how to effectively post a link.

Thanks.

Now you're being a smart a**. Get over yourself. I, like most here, know full well how to post a link. Apparently it don't work with that site. I tried, using the Internet with no access to legal research sites. It didn't work. So, I had to figure a way around it. I do that and you talk down to me. WTF?

How did that profit you? Bet your a** I won't be so helpful the next time.

Scrounger
02-27-2017, 01:27 PM
They really are though. Why you find this so hard to believe is a mystery.

The libs realize that the war against firearms is going on 24 / 7. It's being done incrementally so that gun owners appear to be crying wolf for no reason.

resister
02-27-2017, 01:31 PM
The libs realize that the war against firearms is going on 24 / 7. It's being done incrementally so that gun owners appear to be crying wolf for no reason.
You don't put the frog in boiling water, start room temp, slowly crank the heat.

MisterVeritis
02-27-2017, 04:39 PM
Concentrate first on how to effectively post a link.
Thanks.
His link worked fine for me. It could be a browser issue.