Other State The problem with the judicial system is the judges...

[The Heretic]

Most (all?) judges/courts do not seem to understand the history and intention of the Second Amendment; i.e., the balance of power. They seem to not know that the purpose is to give citizens the tools for the same raw military power that the government forces have.

Were they never taught this? Or did they fall asleep in law school?

I assume they were never taught this.

Memorandum & Opinion – #28 in HANSON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (D.D.C., 1:22-cv-02256) – CourtListener.com

MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 8 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4-20-2023. (lcrc3) (Entered: 04/20/2023)

www.courtlistener.com

In conclusion, the Court finds that the Second Amendment does not cover LCMs because
they are not typically possessed for self-defense. LCMs fall outside of the Second Amendment's
scope because they are most useful in military service and because they are not in fact commonly
used for self-defense. Given that the District prevails at step one of Bruen's framework, the

The District's magazine capacity limit (10) also prevents civilians from maintaining
greater firepower than law enforcement. Law enforcement in the District routinely carry 15- and
17-round magazines. Parsons Decl. ¶¶ 14–16, ECF No. 17-7. The District's LCM ban keeps the
advantage police have over armed civilians who may be suspects or engaged in criminal activity.
Id. ¶¶ 17–18.

Read More

 

[Member 34319]

I'd say it's the judge's bank accounts.

 

[Val1884]

It's the fact the addresses of the homes they live in are not public knowledge. Attitudes would change if it was a fair playing field.

 

[Hoopster]

When looking for addresses of "people" one can usually find mortgage records with the respective County Recorder, generally can be obtained online as well. I have yet to see a mortgage note or DOT that did not have an address on it.

It seems to me that if they have access to my information the public should be able to know theirs.

 

[Hoopster]

Judges in Washington State function as a single unit, much like the average Democrat, the singular messaging comes from the BJA (Board of Judicial Administration) funded by the AOC, or the Washington State Association of Superior Court Judges (which they commonly misuse the name SCJA or Superior Court Judges Association).

The Superior Court Judges Association if wholly funded by the Taxpayers and it also includes hiring of Private Lobbing firms (Tom Parker out of Spokane comes to mind) for six figure amounts to lobby against the wishes of the people.

No other State funded agency is allowed to hire or use private lobbyist with public money, but they make the rulings so they think it is OK.

 

[The Heretic]

I'd say it's the judge's bank accounts.

I don't think they are getting bribed. I don't think their decisions are based on any kind of financial conflict of interest.

I think they actually believe what they say, and that is a much bigger problem than any kind of financial corruption.

It is a corruption of what they are taught is the philosophy behind the US Constitution Bill of Rights. They are taught that our rights are secondary to government interest, and that is just the opposite of what the Founders intended. This is not just with regards to the Second Amendment, but all of them. "Government interests" and "preservation" take precedence over our Natural Rights, and that is just plain flat out wrong.

 

[Member 34319]

I don't think they are getting bribed. I don't think their decisions are based on any kind of financial conflict of interest.

I think they actually believe what they say, and that is a much bigger problem than any kind of financial corruption.

It is a corruption of what they are taught is the philosophy behind the US Constitution Bill of Rights. They are taught that our rights are secondary to government interest, and that is just the opposite of what the Founders intended. This is not just with regards to the Second Amendment, but all of them. "Government interests" and "preservation" take precedence over our Natural Rights, and that is just plain flat out wrong.

Bribed, no. Rearranging money legally, yes.

Look at the Clinton's or Pelosi's or the current administration. They aren't ever doing anything truly illegal and since they are all on the same "side" nothing ever becomes of it.

More I learn about government, the more I realize it's always been about the $.

 

[Dieselchessy]

Most (all?) judges/courts do not seem to understand the history and intention of the Second Amendment; i.e., the balance of power. They seem to not know that the purpose is to give citizens the tools for the same raw military power that the government forces have.

Were they never taught this? Or did they fall asleep in law school?

"it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

 

[The Heretic]

"it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

I truly do not think it has anything to do with money. I think there are decades and decades of precedent and law schools that lawyers and judges are taught the wrong thing.

 

[Stomper]

Most (all?) judges/courts do not seem to understand the history and intention of the Second Amendment; i.e., the balance of power. They seem to not know that the purpose is to give citizens the tools for the same raw military power that the government forces have.

Were they never taught this? Or did they fall asleep in law school?

I assume they were never taught this.

Memorandum & Opinion – #28 in HANSON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (D.D.C., 1:22-cv-02256) – CourtListener.com

MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 8 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4-20-2023. (lcrc3) (Entered: 04/20/2023)

www.courtlistener.com

C'mon, they read the same history books as the rest of us….. they know the true intent and meaning, they just don't care because it's counter to the current stand of their political "tribe".

I don't think they are getting bribed. I don't think their decisions are based on any kind of financial conflict of interest.

I think they actually believe what they say, and that is a much bigger problem than any kind of financial corruption.

It is a corruption of what they are taught is the philosophy behind the US Constitution Bill of Rights. They are taught that our rights are secondary to government interest, and that is just the opposite of what the Founders intended. This is not just with regards to the Second Amendment, but all of them. "Government interests" and "preservation" take precedence over our Natural Rights, and that is just plain flat out wrong.

The main (if not sole) purpose of government is to secure and defend the constitutional rights and lives of the citizens, PERIOD.


Any jack-wagon can see that.

 

[The Heretic]

C'mon, they read the same history books as the rest of us….. they know the true intent and meaning, they just don't care because it's counter to the current stand of their political "tribe".

Do they though? I doubt they have read any of the history books written by Libertarians and others about Natural Rights, and about the history of the Second Amendment specifically - the ones I have read.

Even if they have, they get it drummed out of their heads when they go to law school, and when they spend time in court.

 

[Stomper]

Do they though? I doubt they have read any of the history books written by Libertarians and others about Natural Rights, and about the history of the Second Amendment specifically - the ones I have read.

Even if they have, they get it drummed out of their heads when they go to law school, and when they spend time in court.

Most judges are as old, or older than I am (when civics and government were actually taught in high-school). If they're that weak-minded as to have the basic tenants of our founding principles found in myriad documents (federalists papers, etc) drummed out of their heads then they (or their descendants) will eventually get their come uppin's….. so yes, that's a problem.

 

[bcp]

A Judge, whose decision can be accurately predicted by a letter after their name, is not doing any judging.

Bruce

 

[Knobgoblin]

Judges are lawyers first.
Lawyers are the "ruling class" of this country, at least for the last few decades. They have replaced the "nobles " , while the " merchants " remain in much the same position as they held for the last 2000 years.

Your serf/peasant opinions don't matter to either.

 

[Dieselchessy]

I truly do not think it has anything to do with money. I think there are decades and decades of precedent and law schools that lawyers and judges are taught the wrong thing.

What would they have been taught?

Some folks argue the "well regulated militia" angle not providing "individual rights" protections.
But most State constitutions don't contain the "militia" comment in their constitutions, so there are tens of examples reinforcing the thought that the 2nd does indeed protect "individual right to bear arms".
Washingtons constitution says "right of the individual citizen".

So what is it you believe these folks are being taught? An odd definition of "arms".

Some will argue the Second is 200 odd years old and doesn't apply to todays "Arms". But no one maintains that stance when presented with the point that the First is equally as old, yet still applies to new communications technologies.

 

[The Heretic]

What would they have been taught?

I would start with some of the books I have read:

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition: Bailyn, Bernard: 9780674975651: Amazon.com: Books

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition [Bailyn, Bernard] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition

www.amazon.com

Amazon.com: The History of Freedom eBook : Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton: Books

Amazon.com: The History of Freedom eBook : Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton: Books

www.amazon.com

 

[slimmer13]

There's basically three categories of judges.

Those that are ignorant of the constitution. They either don't know it or they think that it's a fluid document that means what they want it to mean depending on which way the wind blows.

There's strict constitutionalists. They actually do their best to follow it and it's intent.

And then there's those that know the constitution, know what it says, know what it means, know what was intended, but willfully ignore it for their own reasons (activist judges).

There's a greater likelihood of each type depending on their political affiliation.

 

[Koda]

There's too many people who simply don't agree with the constitution, specifically the 2A. They do not believe for a minute it means an individual right or that the people should have the means to check the govt. They've read the same documents, history books, they just believe in a different ideology than we do.
then they get elected.

 

[Hoopster]

90%+ of Washington State Superior Court Judges are Governor appointed and when re-election comes around they run unopposed because the WBAR is in lock set with the Judicial branch. Vast majority of King County Judges were ex-family law lawyers, we all know they are the utter cream of the crop

Montana has retention voting for Judges so even if there is no opponent the citizens can vote out the bubblegum Judges