Tweet
No desire to create new thread on subject.
Your privilege, but please start your own threads instead of tagging onto threads that have been inactive for 3 months.
// Librarian
// Librarian
-
Last edited by Librarian; 03-15-2012, 5:40 PM. -
Funny how those in shall-issue / free states, call themselves free cuz they have shall-issue CCW and thumb their nose at CA, and then also turn around and say their shall-issue CCW is a licensing an enumerated right and is unconstitutional. Maybe the should seek an easily attainable legislative solution to that aye?http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...ed-to-2nd.html
Comment by Don.
Comment by DLRu
Why is Murdock not part of the strategy?
Oh wait.....it wasn't recognized as a fundamental, enumerated, individual right before Heller/McD was it? Well F that Gura guy....who does he think he is?"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"
Quote for the day:"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the SunComment
-
It is. See the Heller decision. A Murdock style case should only be done after "shall issue" is secured judicially & after fees are reduced from outrageous amounts to nominal amounts. The idea of licensing a right being wrong is deserving of briefing on that issue by itself, not mixed in with numerous other issues, like Heller II or the IAFR cases in Chicago.
There are page limits & word limits that must be followed. And to have the best effect, sticking with 1 issue helps. You should know this if you are a lawyer....Last edited by Gray Peterson; 03-15-2012, 3:32 PM.Comment
-
That's why I said *if*, and he seems to have indicated that he's a lawyer. Without knowing his real life name to check, that's difficult to verify.
He wouldn't be arguing these issues and begging and pleading the powers that be in CGF here so publicly if he didn't have some sort of legal interest. Rather than emailing Gene, or me, or even Alan directly, he decided it would be better to attack the coalition's method of dealing with the issue, without understanding that he actually was doing what he was suggesting, except doing so in a gradualist fashion in a similar vein to the Road to Brown v. Board, or the Jehovah's Witness cases of the 1940's...
Unfortunately, his desire for anonymity was quite big, so therefor his willingness to act like a ******* went up, which tends to happen when people don't know who you are.Last edited by Gray Peterson; 03-15-2012, 5:28 PM.Comment
-
For what conceivable purpose would I ever initiate personal contact with you or Gene? What fact or "insight" do either of you have that I would ever possibly want?
"The Coalition?" I'll be looking at tax returns for how this entity is organized.he decided it would be better to attack the coalition's method of dealing with the issue,
Absolutely voice displeasure at the bad course. Things aren't going well. In your case, they're probably going to say that intermediate scrutiny permits states to make an examination into who is carrying firearms in public. Given that you don't reside in Colorado, the state cannot conduct a satisfactory examination of you, and given that you don't hold a permit from a state whose verification procedures are acceptable to Colorado, you're not eligible for reciprocity. You lose, and that case becomes precedent.
The post HM cases are pretty bad, but you've had this told to you in other threads, so you know you're pressing a losing position.without understanding that he actually was doing what he was suggesting, except doing so in a gradualist fashion in a similar vein to the Road to Brown v. Board, or the Jehovah's Witness cases of the 1940's...
The problem you can't get over is that I'm right; you're wrong, and you lose every argument with me, badly, even though I ignore almost all of your posts and would block you if you weren't a moderator.
I hope the NRA pulls your case out of the fire on Monday. It really would be nice to win that one.Comment
-
ROFL!...Comment
-
Then...why did you even post here in the first place, trying to get attention to yourself?
Instead of reaching out directly and asking questions privately, where we could have calmly explained the textual/plain reading thing to you, you decided take it public and make a fool out of yourself.
It's an unofficial grouping of orgs. It's basically SAF, CGF, numerous state organizations. The folks that get things done, like McDonald and Ezell."The Coalition?" I'll be looking at tax returns for how this entity is organized.
Absolutely voice displeasure at the bad course. Things aren't going well. In your case, they're probably going to say that intermediate scrutiny permits states to make an examination into who is carrying firearms in public. Given that you don't reside in Colorado, the state cannot conduct a satisfactory examination of you, and given that you don't hold a permit from a state whose verification procedures are acceptable to Colorado, you're not eligible for reciprocity. You lose, and that case becomes precedent.
The post HM cases are pretty bad, but you've had this told to you in other threads, so you know you're pressing a losing position.
Just like the state is doing, your posting two particular falsehood:
1) the state cannot conduct a satisfactory examination of you,
This is a lie also repeated by the Brady Campaign and the state. I spent $52.50 on fingerprinting with the Denver Police. Half of that is the FBI fingerprinting check, and half of it is a Colorado state fingerprinting check. Also, they can use part of the $100 application fee to call up the Washington State Patrol and submit my fingerprints to WASIS ($13), and call up my local police department to see if I've had any contacts. They can also do NCIC, III, and NICS as part of their monthly access agreement (they don't charge per check).
Rights are not based on the lack of ability to background check when one is fully cooperative to the point of actually flying down to Colorado, and Denver didn't deny because they couldn't check my background, they denied solely based on non-residency, and I can't carry in Denver without that Denver license.
2) given that you don't hold a permit from a state whose verification procedures are acceptable to Colorado, you're not eligible for reciprocity.
Colorado "giving reciprocity" to another state has zero to do with verification procedures, at all. Colorado law states:
A permit to carry a concealed weapon that is issued to a person (who is at least 21 years of age) by another state will be considered valid in Colorado if the other state, in turn, recognized Colorado's concealed handgun permits. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6]
That's it. There is no "verification" required. It is simply "Does your state recognize our licenses". Washington State doesn't recognize Colorado because Colorado does not require statutorily mandated mental health background checks.
Read that again:
Colorado does not require statutorily mandated mental health background checks.
Textual=Plain Reading. Even you have to admit you made a fool out of yourself, typing in all caps, yelling, acting all sorts of unbalanced. Tends to happen when you don't have your name on the line.The problem you can't get over is that I'm right; you're wrong, and you lose every argument with me, badly, even though I ignore almost all of your posts and would block you if you weren't a moderator.
I'd say I was the winner of the argument. You lost control first and started yelling, and then you necroposted when you lost.
And your basis for thinking the NRA thinks I'm doing this wrong is???? Btw, just reading their amicus brief doesn't count.I hope the NRA pulls your case out of the fire on Monday. It really would be nice to win that one.Comment
-
Wow Gray. How do you find to the time to deliver such continuous pwnage?
Nicely done.Treat every stressful situation like a dog.
If you can't eat it, play with it, or hump it ...
PISS ON IT, and walk away.Comment
There are currently 3509 users online. 113 members and 3396 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment