Author Topic: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)  (Read 14350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #180 on: January 16, 2013, 11:36:02 AM »

Online Rondo2287

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12230
  • Tommy Points: 563
  • Historical Draft Best Overall/Best Defensive team


Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?

What's the contradiction?  What has been ruled unconstitional here besides what this sheriff is claiming to be unconstituional in his own eyes?
Nothing yet, they havent passed any laws yet, I was just curious

If a law is upheld by the Supreme Court, it is constitutionally valid, right? So, if a law is passed that some people think is unconstitutional, and they challenge it in the Supreme Court, and the SC upholds the law, isn't it be default constitutional?

Right, from the looks of this he is saying that between the time the law is passed and the time it takes to get to the supreme court he won't enforce
Indiana CB Draft, Kevin Durant, Deron Williams, Luis Scola, Robin Lopez, Ray Allen, Elton Brand, Rodney Stuckey, Marvin Williams, Jeff Taylor, Andrew Nicholson, Shaun Livingston, Markieff Morris, Michael Beasley

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #181 on: January 16, 2013, 11:47:45 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38882
  • Tommy Points: 1965
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.


Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?

What's the contradiction?  What has been ruled unconstitional here besides what this sheriff is claiming to be unconstituional in his own eyes?
Nothing yet, they havent passed any laws yet, I was just curious

If a law is upheld by the Supreme Court, it is constitutionally valid, right? So, if a law is passed that some people think is unconstitutional, and they challenge it in the Supreme Court, and the SC upholds the law, isn't it be default constitutional?

Right, from the looks of this he is saying that between the time the law is passed and the time it takes to get to the supreme court he won't enforce

Oh, I thought we were talking about an unrelated hypothetical. This guy, opting to take the law into his own hands, that's his right as a free willed human being. There are histories of specific law enforcement officials choosing what laws to enforce, whether it is to help in the persecution of one group (failing to enforce civil rights laws), or to aid in stopping what they feel is the persecution of one group (for instance, failing to enforce New Mexico's new citizen check laws).

Ultimately, time moves on. Either the law stands or it doesn't, but this sheriff will come around or be replaced.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #182 on: January 16, 2013, 11:58:29 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38882
  • Tommy Points: 1965
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Is it New Mexico or Arizona who has the new immigration laws?

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #183 on: January 16, 2013, 12:37:34 PM »

Online foulweatherfan

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12750
  • Tommy Points: 1547
Obama's announced his executive orders on gun control, here's the list, as described by the administration:

Quote
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

Some of these seem pretty minor, while others are so vague that I'd have to see the details to have an opinion on them. 

It seems like the big ones mostly involve revamping the background check system, mainly broadening the range of situations where background checks are used to cover any type of gun sale and more law enforcement actions.  #2 and #4 are two of the really broad ones that could go in any number of directions.  I am glad to see the focus on research in #14 - too much of these debates rely on people just batting their intuitions around.  Some hard data would really help inform whatever actions we might choose to take in the future.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #184 on: January 16, 2013, 02:17:15 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23650
  • Tommy Points: -29129
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

My sister in law put one for those videos up on facebook with a, "Does anyone know if any of this is true? If so, WOW!"

I defriended her.

People are just ridiculously stupid.

It's why I get on Ron Paul's case for going on Alex Jones' show.  When you legitimize craziness, you're part of the problem.

There are different kinds of crazy...the loud and out in the open kind of crazy is infinitely less harmful than the quiet, concealed crazy.

Often, the loud, open crazies are profiteering off of -- and enabling the sick fantasies of -- the quiet, concealed crazies.


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #185 on: January 16, 2013, 02:21:53 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23650
  • Tommy Points: -29129
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .


Good read

I don't disagree with the gist of what he's saying, but I disagree strongly with the implication that he (and not the court system) gets to decide what is and is not an infringement of Constitutional rights.  If the courts find a new law or regulation unconstitutional, then this guy doesn't have to do anything to stop them.  If they find them constitutional, then saying "Nope, I still think they're unconstitutional, not enforcing them" is a pretty major breach of his duties as law enforcement.

Too many people seem to want to appoint themselves as arbiters of Constitutionality these days.

I agree.  However, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can't compel state executive officers to execute Federal law. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #186 on: January 16, 2013, 02:23:14 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38882
  • Tommy Points: 1965
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
I don't think any 'revolutions' are going to be started by those.

Can't wait to hear Alex Jones connect the dots back to 9-11.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #187 on: January 16, 2013, 02:59:54 PM »

Online foulweatherfan

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12750
  • Tommy Points: 1547
I don't think any 'revolutions' are going to be started by those.

Can't wait to hear Alex Jones connect the dots back to 9-11.

Just wait, it's pretty quiet now because most people don't like developing opinions from primary sources, but by tomorrow the blogs and pundits will have cranked out the outrage rationale du jour.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #188 on: January 16, 2013, 03:18:12 PM »

Offline LB3533

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3969
  • Tommy Points: 306
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.


Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #189 on: January 16, 2013, 03:21:32 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23650
  • Tommy Points: -29129
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.

Why do you choose to live in a country with a government that you believe would (or at least, could) massacre 3,000 of its own citizens, or ruthlessly execute young children?


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #190 on: January 16, 2013, 03:52:51 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38882
  • Tommy Points: 1965
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-sandy-hook-truther-conspiracy-video-that-five-million-people-have-watched-in-one-week

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #191 on: January 16, 2013, 04:10:58 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27116
  • Tommy Points: 2036


Good read
Another moron with a God complex because of the fact he has a gun in his hands.

He's a sworn upholder of the Constitution and won't uphold the Constitution because he wants his guns. My guess is that he and his ilk will be lumped in with the large amount of law officers in the late 19th and 20th centuries that decided they weren't going to enforce laws pertaining to the color of a person's skin because the Constitution said blacks were only 5/8 of a white person and hence shouldn't have the same rights as whites.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #192 on: January 16, 2013, 04:18:03 PM »

Online foulweatherfan

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12750
  • Tommy Points: 1547
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-sandy-hook-truther-conspiracy-video-that-five-million-people-have-watched-in-one-week

Yeah, that's the video my wife was watching last night that brought it up (she doesn't buy it for a second either, just wanted to see what people were talking about on her Facebook).

I was astonished that someone could take so much time to produce something so willfully clueless.  Some media reports being taken as 100% accurate, others disregarded or deliberately misinterpreted, treating witnesses forgetting to mention details or acting awkward on camera as "evidence" that they're lying, failure to follow through on the most inane, easily answerable "questions", complete ignorance of how family members behave in high-stress, emotionally traumatic situations...the stupid just oozes out of that thing. 

I think my favorite is when they show footage of the scene slowed down, then within 30 seconds claim it's staged because "why's that guy walking so slowly?  Certainly doesn't seem like an emergency."  Even ignoring the offensiveness of the position taken, it's like an atlas of logical fallacy and lazy conclusion-driven thinking.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #193 on: January 16, 2013, 05:18:38 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23650
  • Tommy Points: -29129
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .


Good read
Another moron with a God complex because of the fact he has a gun in his hands.

He's a sworn upholder of the Constitution and won't uphold the Constitution because he wants his guns. My guess is that he and his ilk will be lumped in with the large amount of law officers in the late 19th and 20th centuries that decided they weren't going to enforce laws pertaining to the color of a person's skin because the Constitution said blacks were only 5/8 of a white person and hence shouldn't have the same rights as whites.

Do you feel the same way when the Justice Department doesn't enforce immigration laws due to "prosecutorial discretion"?  When they don't enforce drug laws?

It's grandstanding, but refusing to enforce certain laws doesn't mean he's not upholding the Constitution.  In fact, as cited earlier, neither Congress nor the President can't force him as a state executive to enforce a Federal law.  I'd say he's on much firmer ground regarding his role in our federal republic than, say, Federal immigration officials who refuse to enforce Federal immigration law.


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #194 on: January 16, 2013, 06:26:34 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27116
  • Tommy Points: 2036

Do you feel the same way when the Justice Department doesn't enforce immigration laws due to "prosecutorial discretion"?  When they don't enforce drug laws?

Actually, yeah, I kinda do feel the same way. If you are getting paid to uphold the law, then do your job.

Also, when you don't agree with a particular law, don't go grandstanding that you are only going to enforce certain laws and ignore others because, are you really upholding the Constitution if that's what you are going to do?

BTW, regarding Federal law versus local law and a Sheriff's responsibility, if he took an oath to uphold the Constitution shouldn't he be required to enforce the laws of the federal government? Seems a bit hypocritical to take that oath if you are going to decide when and where not to uphold that oath?

So if he sees white people refusing to allow a black person to vote by refusing them access to a voting booth, he can just turn his head  If he sees someone that openly has a slave(think human trafficking), he can ignore that and not do anything because, after all, that is enforcing a Federal law and the Constitution?

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog