|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
The First (?) Post-Heller Case Holding a Gun Control Law Unconstitutional:
Cool.
http://volokh.com/posts/1231712651.shtml Quote:
__________________
Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain Last edited by aileron; 01-15-2009 at 5:45 AM.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I don't see the issue. ..I know the argument is that people with child pornography have a correlation to actually committing pedophilia.
I feel that the system is broken especially in that respect. I have even heard that some people, as a condition of bail can be forced to waive their 4th amendment rights so that they can enter your home and search it, your person or anything you own without any warrants or consent! How can that be legal? "Waive your rights or risk your safety and life in jail." I consider that extortion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
it's not extortion. if you are convicted of a crime, and the crime calls for a prison term of 5 years, then it's 5 years in prison and i can guarantee you have no 4th amendment protection against search while you're in the can.
So parole is a bit of dealmaking. the state says, "we'll free you from being Bubba's wife for the remainder of your sentence, but since you're a crook you'll have to agree to give up your 4th amendment right against search. Or, you can stay right where you're at and enjoy the nightly banging." Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. EDIT: Whoops! you said as a condition of bail. I thought you meant parole. The bail thing I've not heard of. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
This is similar to the Emerson case, but on the criminal side as opposed to the civil side.
__________________
Rule #1: Keep your booger hook off the bang-switch! Cruz/West 2016 - You STILL want to call me a racist tea bagger? |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I find it interesting that the world was aghast at prisoners being forced to wear underwear on their heads at Abu Ghraib, and we would all be calling for heads if a woman were raped in prison but somehow it's just funny as all get out that men are regularly raped in prison. Most just consider it a part of the punishment i guess. Now it's true that it might me poetic justice for child molesters, but it's still a constitutional violation.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Its one of those things I hope in the future will be looked at as barbaric.
__________________
Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is VERY good. Not that I favor accused child porn types, but that it shows that the mind of at least Federal Magistrate has been changed by HELLER. More importantly, he's accepted the new legal standard & then applied it. One Magistrate isn't going to change things. But, its more than possible that this ruling shows that change is indeed coming in that The Basic Question now being settled, all the rest will come our way. The Raisuli |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I agree with the ruling in the fact that someone merely accused should not be stripped of any rights unless that person is considered to create a detriment to safety. I feel that to prove that the state will have to make the argument that THAT person poses a threat and not a general belief in threat.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
The individual in this instance is only accused, not convicted and on parole. Nice ruling declaring unconstitutional the suspension of enumerated Rights as a condition of pretrial release!
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/ |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Don't you mean "out on bail" awaiting trial? On parole would happen after serving time for a conviction.
__________________
โA human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.โ - Lazarus Long |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Bottom line - the judge is saying innocent until proven guilty, the government can not restrict rights unless/until AFTER a conviction, in this case for possession of child porn, correct?
If this holds, is there any effect on TROs, such as often occurs during nasty divorces & such? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
No, he meant exactly what he said. If you follow his syntax, he said that the guy in this case is only ACCUSED and NOT convicted and NOT on parole (after being convicted).
__________________
Expert firearms attorney: https://www.rwslaw.com/team/adam-j-richards/ Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
LOL we took it to PMs to avoid the ever disastrous grammar arguments on CGN with derail threads and cause dissention amongst the ranks
Thanks for the back though .
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/ Last edited by Liberty1; 01-23-2009 at 8:45 AM.. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I know a guy that is here from Germany on a work visa. During an argument, his wife hit him, so he left her. The next day, the cops show up at his work with a restraining order filed by his wife! It took 3 months for him to get the restraining order removed, and his case was very clear. (I think his wife ended up getting charged with making a false report.) Now, this guy isn't a citizen, so he didn't have any guns in the first place. He also said after his 'guilty until proven innocent' experience, he plans to go back to Germany. (Apparently, in Germany you have to provide proof before you can get a restraining order.) Is that is how bad it's getting here folks?! People are fleeing to Germany to get away from the USA injustice system. I very much hope this ruling is the first step toward overturning some of our stupid laws. The only time someone should be deprived of their rights is when they have been convicted by a jury. Never before. The suspension of those rights (all of them) should end as soon as they serve their debt to society. Never after.
__________________
www.freestateproject.org - Liberty In Our Lifetime. www.madison-society.org - the people who brought us Nordyke and long-time litigation group. It's been more than 50 years since the US Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to require a test and a tax for people to exercise their right to vote. Why is my right to carry a gun any different? I don't want a permission slip from a bureaucrat; I don't want to pay a tax or take a test. "Shall issue" is NOT good enough. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Well it's from a magistrate judge in the Federal Southern District of New York, so it's far from binding and out side our federal circuit but it will raise eyebrows.
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I know I just had breakfast with one of my clients, he owns several small businesses in town, and is originally from Greece... I asked him his feelings about gun control and where he was coming from... he said he didn't understand why the US is the only country that still has this issue, he said no other country has open carry or concealed weapons or are even able to go to a store and buy guns... his feeling was why have Law Enforcement officers if we're going to take the law into our own hands... I really wasn't aware of what other countries have or don't have... but that's a pretty good question, where does the US stand with other countries as far as gun control? Personally, I see our economy failing especially here in Calif, and don't really see the need to me to go out hunting to put meat our my table, but as far as someone coming into my house as taking the meat off my table is where I see the need for protecting my family and household. Just someone else's .02 worth on the matter...
__________________
"I've got Sole but I'm not a Soldier" I'm only here to protect what I believe in... |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds like good grounds to challenge the required surrending, selling or transfering of firearms simply because someone has filed for a restraining order as well.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance" Quote for the day: Quote:
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Whoa, in a Communist country, no less?
__________________
Quote:
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Not for a while.
Also, the chosen ones could always own guns in the communist countries. They just denied that, and other, rights to the rest of the population. Rather like our annointed ones. As far as the rest of the world... Most countries out there were never really free. That includes the Western European countries. So just because they suck, should we follow in their footsteps? Expanding on that argument, if Greece was so commonsense and sane, why come to this insane country in the first place?
__________________
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated. DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292 |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Yugoslavia was a Communist country. Once it ceased to be Communist it ceased to be Yugoslavia.
Dunno what their gun laws were like, but I do know Serbia and Croatia are just awash with firearms. And things are pretty free in Western Europe. I know since I used to live there.
__________________
Quote:
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yugoslavia was an interesting case. Tito was a Communist, but he gave the bird to Stalin (who fancied himself the worldwide leader of all Communist movements) following WWII and found his own path.
__________________
Quote:
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I don't really have an issue with TROs being issued, even if they are not merited, as long as it does not adversely affect the recipient in an unfair way.
__________________
bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The security of a gun-free state is imagined. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In particular, he's confused about the difference between law enforcement and self defense. If you get the opportunity to talk to him again, ask him what an individual is supposed to do to protect his own life when the police aren't right there and the individual in question doesn't (for whatever reason) have the option of fleeing. If that line of questioning doesn't change his mind, ask him why the other countries don't place as much value on human life as the U.S. does, since that would clearly be the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact that people in these other countries don't have the right to self defense. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Cameras won't protect you. The police won't protect you unless they just happen to be there at the right time, and perhaps not even then. Only you can guarantee your own protection. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Will she let me buy a Patton or a Barbara?
I haven't decided if I want my own tank or a mistress. Hmmm. Maybe I'll check with my wife and ask her opinion.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
If you commit a crime and are found guilty you lose most of your rights. You're no longer free once you're in jail/prison once those 12 peers say guilty. If people are worried about losing their freedom, they shouldn't commit the crime.
If someone is on bail then they're still not free. The alternative is being in a jail cell waiting for your trial. Now, keep in mind, this happens when there's actually evidence to charge someone with, not just willy nilly. Now, I don't think that someone should have to forfeit their possessions simply because they're accused. But, if there's such strong evidence against such a person, then it's hard to argue that they should be allowed around weapons.
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor NRA Certified Instructor CA DOJ Certified Instructor Glock Certified Armorer |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
I can't agree with a lifetime loss of rights except for those who commit a violent crime. Maybe require a 10 year wait and court hearing before restoring them but there should be a way. For example those convicted of felony drug possession for a single joint during the 60s should be able to get their rights back by now. The same for other dumb kid mistakes.
But use a weapon in the commission of a violent crime and it should be a lifetime loss. Of course IMHO commit a violet crime with a gun and you should never-ever get out of prison. One strike. The same for rape and child molesters.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"I've got Sole but I'm not a Soldier" I'm only here to protect what I believe in... |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I imagine that a tank would be cheaper. Besides, they have back seats, don't they? The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|