Active Shooter El Paso Texas August 3rd 2019

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
As he urged the ATF to ban bump stocks. Keep drinking the koolaide

We already know that the bump stock shenanigans will not hold up in court......this has been explained previously

They're going to have similar problems with Red Flag language in the Senate let alone in the numerous legal challenges to badly written legislation that inevitably violates multiple constitutional rights

I'm more than a little disappointed and letters to the WH are inbound.......everyone else should do same

Want to bet these shootings were coordinated false flags?
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
Nobody is claiming that he's the most pro 2a president we've ever had

But at the same time he's the only one in recent years who has actually committed to defending RKBA.....
How has he committed to defending the RKBA? By signing the bump stock bill which can and most likely will be used to ban anything that helps to increase the rate of fire. By appointing an AG and nominating the head of ATF that have expressed support for infringements. His judges might be okay but I won't hold my breath. If I remember correctly Gorsuch has made a statement that the 2A should not be infringed upon lightly but that's not correct. It should not be infringed upon at all. The BOR is a restriction on government.
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
We already know that the bump stock shenanigans will not hold up in court......this has been explained previously
Maybe not but lately the SCOTUS has tended to decline 2A cases and let the lower court rulings stand.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
Maybe not but lately the SCOTUS has tended to decline 2A cases and let the lower court rulings stand.

Red Flag law challenges are not going to be 2A cases per se

They are 4th/5th amendment transgressons at the fed level and vary from state to state wrt state constitutions

Red Flag laws are generally a profound violation of multiple sections of the NH Constitution
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
Red Flag law challenges are not going to be 2A cases per se

They are 4th/5th amendment transgressons at the fed level and vary from state to state wrt state constitutions

Red Flag laws are generally a profound violation of multiple sections of the NH Constitution
I learned a long time ago that government including the judicial branch doesn't abide by the constitution unless it suits them and that they make up and reinterpret the amendments as they see fit. Hell they don't even understand what the words shall not be infringed mean and yet you think they'll do the right thing? Sorry but I've got too many knife wounds in my back to trust that they'll do the right thing.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
How has he committed to defending the RKBA? By signing the bump stock bill which can and most likely will be used to ban anything that helps to increase the rate of fire. By appointing an AG and nominating the head of ATF that have expressed support for infringements. His judges might be okay but I won't hold my breath. If I remember correctly Gorsuch has made a statement that the 2A should not be infringed upon lightly but that's not correct. It should not be infringed upon at all. The BOR is a restriction on government.

Donald Trump Archives | NY Firearms | Dedicated to the ownership, laws, and politics of firearms and weapons in New York State.

Trump isnt one to go back on his word

He might nibble around the edges but dont expect him to go against the answers provided in link above.

the bump stock issue is truly problematic for reasons better explained by the video below than by me.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dti41WdBVHE


With that said I'm not exactly prepared to make bump stocks the legislative hill I proverbially die on.

Its a dangerous precident, it stands little to no chance of surviving a challenge in the courts based on law as written so......
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
I learned a long time ago that government including the judicial branch doesn't abide by the constitution unless it suits them and that they make up and reinterpret the amendments as they see fit. Hell they don't even understand what the words shall not be infringed mean and yet you think they'll do the right thing? Sorry but I've got too many knife wounds in my back to trust that they'll do the right thing.

So how exactly did Heller and subsequent related decisions "Suit" the judicial branch?

It didnt and it doesnt.......

Supreme court is a mess under Roberts imho but additional trump appointments I expect to help restore some sanity along the lines of justice thomas clarity
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
Trump isnt one to go back on his word
When he said the day of infringements were over and then signed the bump stock ban. That's an infringement and going back on his word.
The bump stock ban if it would only affect bump stocks would be one thing but it can be used to ban anything that increases the rate of fire.
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
So how exactly did Heller and subsequent related decisions "Suit" the judicial branch?
It suits the judicial branch because they all support infringements and Heller still allows infringements.
I don't have Heller in front of me but if I remember Scalia said something to the effect that banning weapons capable of mass destruction was okay and so the courts consider the AR and others like it to be included in his ruling.
I've not seen Heller or McDonald stop gun control.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
It suits the judicial branch because they all support infringements and Heller still allows infringements.
I don't have Heller in front of me but if I remember Scalia said something to the effect that banning weapons capable of mass destruction was okay and so the courts consider the AR and others like it to be included in his ruling.
I've not seen Heller or McDonald stop gun control.

It doesnt suit the court at all as you professed because they didnt have to take the case to begin with because it was already codified into law.

Heller et al further restricted gov......it didnt empower it beyond what it had previously done.....
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
The NRA should never have come out in support of any infringements. The ATF had ruled under Obama that they were legal and they should not have been looked at again but they were because of Trump and the NRA.
The video says what I've been saying. He ends it with saying maybe it's time for a change of leadership at the NRA.
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
it was already codified into law
These people make and break the law as they see fit. Lots of things are codified into law but they're not followed by government. The COTUS is the supreme law of the land and they violate it with impunity.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
These people make and break the law as they see fit. Lots of things are codified into law but they're not followed by government. The COTUS is the supreme law of the land and they violate it with impunity.

I agree with you in that people in positions of power (elected/appointed etc) make/break law/regulation as they see fit which is the point about russia gate to be honest

But none of that supports the notion that the supreme court took the cases in question because it "Suited" them as you put it.

Heller etc never suited/benefited the supreme court in any way, shape or form.

They took the case imho because they couldnt continue to resist incorporation of quite literally every other right explicitly guaranteed in the constitution while continueing to exclude 2A.......

The case that Levy and co presented to the supreme court was too strong for the court to deny taking
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
But none of that supports the notion that the supreme court took the cases in question because it "Suited" them as you put it
They choose whether to grant cert or not to the cases as they see fit.
Heller etc never suited/benefited the supreme court in any way, shape or form
It got many gun owners off their back and made them look like they care. At least for a little while.
They took the case imho because they couldnt continue to resist incorporation of quite literally every other right explicitly guaranteed in the constitution while continueing to exclude 2A.......

The case that Levy and co presented to the supreme court was too strong for the court to deny taking
They still denied the 2A in their ruling. Read the first part under Gun rights can be restricted: Antonin Scalia on Gun Control Sounds like they don't understand the words: "Shall not be infringed"
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,728
Likes
3,679
Location
Worcester, MA
Nobody is claiming that he's the most pro 2a president we've ever had

Were there any?

But at the same time he's the only one in recent years who has actually committed to defending RKBA.....

The era of modern gun legislation I will say began in 1994 with the AWB. When it expired in 2004, there was not much in the way of federal legislation that a president would have had any impact on. As far as defending RKBA, no president faced the challenges against it until now.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
They choose whether to grant cert or not to the cases as they see fit.

jpk said:
But none of that supports the notion that the supreme court took the cases in question because it "Suited" them as you put it
They choose whether to grant cert or not to the cases as they see fit.

None of that is consistent with your assertion that the court had to take the case in order to infringe on 2A

The courts were ALREADY outright DENYING 2A..........
wahsben said:
jpk said:
Heller etc never suited/benefited the supreme court in any way, shape or form
It got many gun owners off their back and made them look like they care. At least for a little while.

But the fact that it got RKBA supporters enguaged has no bearing on whether taking/rejected the case suited the court

wahsben said:
jpk said:
They took the case imho because they couldnt continue to resist incorporation of quite literally every other right explicitly guaranteed in the constitution while continueing to exclude 2A.......

The case that Levy and co presented to the supreme court was too strong for the court to deny taking
They still denied the 2A in their ruling. Read the first part under Gun rights can be restricted: Antonin Scalia on Gun Control Sounds like they don't understand the words: "Shall not be infringed"

So what you're saying is that the court has pretty much treated 2A like they have every other right subject to incorporation..........which was my point as to why they took Heller in the first point[/quote]
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
None of that is consistent with your assertion that the court had to take the case in order to infringe on 2A
Where is my assertion that the court had to take the case?
The courts were ALREADY outright DENYING 2A
This was in DC that they were.
But the fact that it got RKBA supporters enguaged has no bearing on whether taking/rejected the case suited the court
Tell me do you have any inside information to support this claim?
So what you're saying is that the court has pretty much treated 2A like they have every other right subject to incorporation..........which was my point as to why they took Heller in the first point
[/QUOTE]
CA. MA. NJ. NY and some others didn't get the memo on incorporation. What I'm saying is that the courts including SCOTUS support infringements upon the 2A. There is something that would have been better than incorporation at the time of Heller & or McDonald but I forget what it is called. I'll have to see if I can find what it was.
It's obvious that you continue to have faith in a system which has consistently screwed gun owners over. I'll remain skeptical.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,289
Likes
12,827
Where is my assertion that the court had to take the case?
You stated a earlier today that scotus had to take the case in order to infringe on RKBA (paraphrased).....I previously pointed out that wasnt true because the courts were already being shitbags.

This was in DC that they were.

Yes, and DC had been violating peoples rights for decades along with a bunch of other states/cities

Tell me do you have any inside information to support this claim?

Please go back and read the thread/comment.......they are unrelated to one another

CA. MA. NJ. NY and some others didn't get the memo on incorporation. What I'm saying is that the courts including SCOTUS support infringements upon the 2A. There is something that would have been better than incorporation at the time of Heller & or McDonald but I forget what it is called. I'll have to see if I can find what it was.
It's obvious that you continue to have faith in a system which has consistently screwed gun owners over. I'll remain skeptical.

This is where you're mistaken

I dont have much faith in the current system because its obvious that the current pols/unelected appointees are not following the constitution as written........

The only options we have are to be vocal and/or support article V or both
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,948
Likes
5,408
Location
Ma.
You stated a earlier today that scotus had to take the case in order to infringe on RKBA (paraphrased).....I previously pointed out that wasnt true because the courts were already being shitbags
Show me where I said they had to take the case. I said that they choose the cases they take I didn't say anything about them having to take the case. You seem to like to write your own and incorrect interpretation of what I say.
Yes, and DC had been violating peoples rights for decades along with a bunch of other states/cities
Yes and it's still pretty much unrecognized by those states.
Please go back and read the thread/comment.......they are unrelated to one another
That response was to your comment:
But the fact that it got RKBA supporters enguaged has no bearing on whether taking/rejected the case suited the court
so it's related to your comment.
This is where you're mistaken
Not mistaken at all. You continue to argue for those that have infringed upon our rights before and that continue to do so to this day.
The only options we have are to be vocal and/or support article V or both
Yes being vocal as much as we can is great but unfortunately the many forms of media for the large part silence our voices and the constitution doesn't need to be amended.It needs to be followed as law because it is law. In places like MA it doesn't matter how loud your voice is, the govt. just ignores it so it's highly unlikely that voices will work unless the majority of people wake up and realize that big government is not the answer.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
15,876
Likes
12,877
Location
North Shore
The only two things in our favor at all right now is Trump is running for re-election and even a couple of million of pissed off gun owners could effect it and the NRA is well aware that they are standing on the edge of a cliff with one foot on a banana peel.
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
108   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
18,909
Likes
8,571
Sorry... must have missed him vetoing the new AWB.
Trump has not had a chance to veto the new AWB because it has not come up yet.

However, he DID say he would veto that new background check bill that was passed in the house.

If Trump would veto that, it is safe to say that he would veto a new AWB, too.
 

edmorseiii

Navy Veteran
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
20,496
Likes
14,407
Location
NH
What you suppose President HR Clinton would be doing right now?

Not taking sides or wasting time. This is the hand we've been dealt. How do we play it?

I don't care about the Hillary fetishes, she isn't president now, and never will be. Trump is the current threat we have to deal with, so I suggest we play that hand instead of back slapping over how much less worst off we are.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
14,104
Likes
16,214
Location
MA
I don't care about the Hillary fetishes, she isn't president now, and never will be. Trump is the current threat we have to deal with, so I suggest we play that hand instead of back slapping over how much less worst off we are.

Yes.

Let's stay focused. Trump is better than HRC; that's a given. But that's also old news.

Is he better than Trump? That's the better question.
 
Top Bottom