|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 7, 2015, 11:12 AM | #151 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 7, 2015, 11:01 PM | #152 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
When do the big lawsuits come for all the foot dragging, when do these (censored) have to face real consequences? If the answer is never, then this will continue until my grandson is dust.
|
January 18, 2017, 11:51 PM | #153 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Ezell II was just decided today in our favor! Chicago's zoning laws that effectively banned firing ranges in the city have been ruled unconstitutional by a 7th Circuit appeals court: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1897637:S:0
The requirement that ranges be in a manufacturing district was thrown out, the laws requiring they be certain distances from residential areas, schools, daycares, etc was thrown out, and the law placing age restrictions on those using the ranges was thrown out. |
January 19, 2017, 01:36 AM | #154 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 956
|
Rahm must be shaking his tiny little fist about that.
Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast. Government, Anarchy and Chaos |
January 19, 2017, 11:49 AM | #155 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Here's a good discussion of Ezell II from Eugene Volokh:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.978d2bab8179 |
January 20, 2017, 06:56 AM | #156 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 1,057
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason |
|
January 20, 2017, 07:41 AM | #157 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2012
Location: Kitsap County, WA, USA
Posts: 445
|
It's things like this and rampant gun violence regardless of the laws that prevent me on many levels, emotional and moral especially, from ever visiting Illinois or Chicago on principle and for my sake as someone rather young to die to gang-related violence now, or ever, really. But mostly now, if I had any prospects of going near the Midwest for work opportunities or school (Job Corps in my State, for my diploma, if Monday goes well for me.) now or prior to reading about this and most anti-RKBA legislative rules in that particular State.
|
January 20, 2017, 11:25 AM | #158 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Those in power, stomping on the natural rights of others has been going on as long as there have been those in power. I don't see that changing. Do, however make sure you understand, and make the distinction between those who do it willfully and gleefully, and those who are just doing their job, the best way they know how, and the way they were taught. I agree, it is a pleasing thought to think that these people should be held personally responsible for their official acts, but this is America, and as a principle, we don't do that, unless they actually break existing law. (and, sadly, not often enough, even then...) It's another moral point to be proud of, something Americans do that happens too seldom in the rest of the world. The standard was set by our Founders, who, after the Revolution, when they had the power, did NOT round up all the Crown agents and hang them. Who did NOT behead the nobility in job lots. Yes, some were tarred and feathered, beaten, run out of town on a rail. True people suffered, and I'm certain there were some fatalities, but by and large these were isolated individual instances. Our former rulers and their servants were not executed, imprisoned for life, sent to a gulag, or anything of the sort, generally. We simply told them to find a new life, preferably somewhere else... What other nation has fought a war for freedom, and then treated its former masters with the degree of fairness and forgiveness that we did???? Yes, while I personally would be happy to see Congressperson Feinschumenbaumbergstein spend the rest of their natural life UNDER the jail, (or worse) that's because I'm small, petty, vicious, venal and vindictive. Satisfying as that might be, they don't actually deserve it, and we don't do it, which shows both ourselves and the world that we actually ARE better people than many make us out to be.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 21, 2017, 11:38 AM | #159 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Well said, 44 AMP, but let's draw some distinctions here too.
When state or local legislators legitimately debate an issue, ask relevant questions, let both (or all) sides provide input and transparently make a decision that may be unconstitutional, there's room to doubt evil intent --as opposed to evil or prejudiced intent. But when these same officials emerge from their legislative committees and say things like "We're satisfied that we've made it as difficult as possible to [exercise a civil right] in light of the court's decision" they have removed any doubt of their contempt for the civil right(s) in question. They should therefore be held to account under Title 18, Part I, §241 and §242 (conspiracy, denial of civil rights). While most city, county and state officials operate under some form of limited immunity for official acts, when it's evident they went to great lengths to limit as many people as possible from exercising their rights they allow that veil of immunity to be pierced. And, IMO, the consequences of such actions should land on them like an anvil.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
January 21, 2017, 03:52 PM | #160 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right.
Civil rights are those granted by the government where my God given, natural, and birth rights are beyond any government or societal management. |
January 21, 2017, 07:55 PM | #161 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
SO, in that context, it is a civil right.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 22, 2017, 08:28 AM | #162 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 22, 2017, 10:52 AM | #163 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
Did not Heller state that the 2A is a "core, fundamental Constitutional right"? I'm nowhere hear a lawyer in any way shape or form, but does that nto qualify it as a civil right, like free speech and the tattered 4A?
|
January 24, 2017, 11:29 AM | #164 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'm closing this thread, as it has diverged from discussing the case at hand to a discussion of what constitutes a civil right.
Discussion of the actual case (Ezell v. Chicago) may be made here: Chicago loses Ezell ---- again (23 Jan`17) Discussion as to what constitutes a civil right will require another thread. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|