Appeals court rules against gun owners...again.

[Gunner3456]

If you ask me, and this is just my opinion here , this is on par for a big problem in our country right now with our leaders. They all have this same 'lawyer' mentality of "you little people are just too stupid to understand the complexities of how the country should be ran and what the constitution ACTUALLY literallly means, so please just sit down and shut up and let us elites handle your life for you." When in all truth, i believe the constitution was made very clear and straight to the point (until you had the upper 'elites' get there grubby hands on it and distort it for their gain). This country was founded on the power goes to the people through small, localized gov't. This just goes to show what happens when they continue to take, bit by bit, our liberties and expand into this monsterous gov't that we're getting. I for one think it's time we take it back because, personally, I am flat out sick of someone else telling me I'm too stupid to know how to run my own life and when/where I can protect myself...... I'll now step down from my soap box

Yep. A Senator (I don't remember which one) was on Fox News last night with a copy of the health care bill, and a copy of the Constitution.

The health care bill is about 2,000 pages long and who knows if anyone has read it?

The Constitution copy was only 17 pages long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What have we come to?

 

[Gunner3456]

I guess I am confused. Here is the statement that he made regarding malpractice. "Failing to do so imho borders on malpractice." I am pretty sure that "imho" is "in my humble opinion". Last I knew, a person was entitled to their own opinion without a bar number. Thanks to many lawyers, that seems to be rapidly changing!

Just sayin'.

Yep. "I believe" or "In my opinion" is free speech, even in today's legal world.

 

[Whitman]

If you ask me, and this is just my opinion here , this is on par for a big problem in our country right now with our leaders. They all have this same 'lawyer' mentality of "you little people are just too stupid to understand the complexities of how the country should be ran and what the constitution ACTUALLY literallly means, so please just sit down and shut up and let us elites handle your life for you." When in all truth, i believe the constitution was made very clear and straight to the point (until you had the upper 'elites' get there grubby hands on it and distort it for their gain). This country was founded on the power goes to the people through small, localized gov't. This just goes to show what happens when they continue to take, bit by bit, our liberties and expand into this monsterous gov't that we're getting. I for one think it's time we take it back because, personally, I am flat out sick of someone else telling me I'm too stupid to know how to run my own life and when/where I can protect myself...... I'll now step down from my soap box

Just so you know, not all lawyers are intellectual elitists. At any rate, some of the comments in this thread clearly indicate that the author has not read the case, or did not understand the rationale underlying the cout's decision.

 

[bugeye]

The Constitution is short and vague. Since 1787 millions of laws, and the flow of what has been allowed, have specified what the current details are of our rights. To take the constitution at face value just makes for crazy arguments. You don't have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre and you don't have the right to go everywhere with your guns. There are practical and legal limits to every freedom that takes place outside of your mind.

To take the 2nd at face value would allow prisoners and the institutionalized insane to be armed, as the 2nd provides no limits at all.

 

[Karma]

The Constitution is short and vague. Since 1787 millions of laws, and the flow of what has been allowed, have specified what the current details are of our rights. To take the constitution at face value just makes for crazy arguments. You don't have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre and you don't have the right to go everywhere with your guns. There are practical and legal limits to every freedom that takes place outside of your mind.

To take the 2nd at face value would allow prisoners and the institutionalized insane to be armed, as the 2nd provides no limits at all.

Why should there be limits on the 2nd amendment? I agree that there should be a very few people that should have their rights limited, such as those you mentioned. Prisoners have their basic constitutional rights infringed upon anyhow. They have unlawful search and seizures at the whim of the authorities. Their freedom of speech is stifled by having all correspondence monitored. That is the nature of being in prison! But should those same rights be taken away from me, a law abiding citizen? **** no. A right in my opinion, is something that can't be regulated or taken away.

You are right. If you cause damages by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building, you are responsible for the damages done. What is the damage done by carrying a weapon for personal protection? Big difference. No damage is done by simply being prepared. I believe that the 2nd amendment was written the way it was for a reason. If you start letting government regulate a right, it is no longer a right.

 

[Whitman]

... If you cause damages by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building, you are responsible for the damages done. ...

Unless there is a fire.

 

[madderg]

Karma,
prisoners are subjected to search and seizure BECAUSE they are a prisoner. You give up certain rights because you can't be trusted with them. For the school board to say CCW person are not allowed to carry there must be a compelling reason and a clear danger. Try to find e instance where that has happened...you can't because it has not happened. Where has the trust been broken?

 

[Karma]

Karma,
prisoners are subjected to search and seizure BECAUSE they are a prisoner. You give up certain rights because you can't be trusted with them. For the school board to say CCW person are not allowed to carry there must be a compelling reason and a clear danger. Try to find e instance where that has happened...you can't because it has not happened. Where has the trust been broken?

That was my point. I understand why they lose rights. My point was that they don't have the right to arms because they are prisoners. That isn't the only right that they lose.

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

You don't have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre

You do, in fact, have the right to yell fire in a crouded theater. You're also responsible for the consequences.

 

[tionico]

bugeye: To take the 2nd at face value would allow prisoners and the institutionalized insane to be armed, as the 2nd provides no limits at all.


whilst there are no limits included within the individual Bill of Rights ammendments, other places within the Constitution do place limits on several of the rights, including the right to arms. There are certain "classes" of people debarred the use of arms, right to assemble, privacy, search, voting, holding of public office, and so forth..... felons are amongst those who forfeit their Constitutional rights by virtue of their lawlessness.

Of course, these days, the list of "felonies" is long, and far too restrictive, and often misused as a means of depriving the convicted of their rights as additional punishment. No matter, for the sake of this discussion..... unless a citizen's personal actions have debarred him the use of arms, according to statutes, we all HAVE the right to keep and bear... and no school district can over-ride the Second Ammendment of their own fancy. At least, not according to law.

Somehow, someone needs to go and clean house, getting rid of ALL such unconstitutional regulations. We are, in theory, a nation under the rule of law.... the Constitution and Bill of Rights being the universally binding starting place. The whole bit about "incorporation" is utter nonsense. The ability to infringe upon those rights in the Bill of Rights has NOT been rendered the states, or any subdivision thereof. "powers not given the federal government, or denied the states, are to the people, or the states".