Sound Legal Advice vs Armed Insurrection

[TonyD2]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
The far right seems to be universally myopic when it comes to understanding statistics. Or basic mathematics quite frequently.

Apparently leftists do, since they can't grasp that gun crimes are continuing to decrease, despite of increases in the number of guns.

[Che Reagan Christ]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
Only under the most limited circumstances, when weighing the constitutional rights of both parties.

In the vast majority of constitutional jurisprudence, there is only one party that has constitutional rights. But, being the legal scholar that you are, you knew that, right?

[Che Reagan Christ]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
Just as Liberty University and the other 40+ lawsuits filed against Obamacare's unconstitutional mandate had no idea.
/s

This is a pointless discussion. This subject is much too nuanced and complicated for you to understand. Good luck with your lawsuit. Especially defending the motion to dismiss.

[Robert]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Then go break into his house and see what happens. Maybe he's quite adept with a Louisville Slugger, like Scotty thugboy Walker.
That would surprise you.
woof

I am a law abiding citizen, not a criminal. We don't commit felonies like the libs do.

[TonyD2]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. Give it a try. You will have a disorderly conduct or inducing panic charge in about 15 minutes. Will you be able to beat it? Probably, but maybe not. You still will have to hire someone like me to get you out of it, though.

Not if one knows their rights

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49957246/Greene-Cou...

The interesting part starts on page 3

[Che Reagan Christ]

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not if one knows their rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49957246/Greene-Cou...
The interesting part starts on page 3

Do a google search and see how many people in Ohio have been charged with inducing panic or disorderly conduct for having a gun in public. I didn't say you would be convicted, but you sure as hell might get charged.

[-tip-]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a pointless discussion. This subject is much too nuanced and complicated for you to understand. Good luck with your lawsuit. Especially defending the motion to dismiss.

It is your legalese that is pointless.
There is nothing nuanced about the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
There is nothing new about a citizen or group of citizens filing suit against bans.
Frequently, however, the NRA and other gun rights groups beat the average citizen to the punch, or join in the suit.
Quite certain your services will not be required.

[TonyD2]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
And sometimes they get charged.

And when they do in Ohio it usually results in the arresting officer becoming extremely embarrassed at his own ignorance. Not unlike the woman who was cited recently by the chief of police for flipping him off (he pulled out in front of her in his unmarked car). He got his ass handed to him in court.

[Kemosahbe]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
Arms are arms.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
Read it.

I'm sure you are joking, but let's stop this farce now.

The Constitution could not and cannot be copyrighted. By federal law. Even if it could have been, since it was written before 1978, the maximum copyright was 95 years, so that ended over one hundred years ago. And your date of 1791 is wrong since it was written in 1787.

Glad I could clear that up for you. No charge.

[-tip-]

Kemosahbe wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sure you are joking, but let's stop this farce now.
The Constitution could not and cannot be copyrighted. By federal law. Even if it could have been, since it was written before 1978, the maximum copyright was 95 years, so that ended over one hundred years ago. And your date of 1791 is wrong since it was written in 1787.
Glad I could clear that up for you. No charge.

Ratified 1791.
Of course, the copyright symbol is for laughs.
What a dolt.

[TonyD2]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Do a google search and see how many people in Ohio have been charged with inducing panic or disorderly conduct for having a gun in public. I didn't say you would be convicted, but you sure as hell might get charged.

Inducing panic requires an underlying "illegal offense". They could try disorderly conduct under the "engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities" part, but I would think "ordinarily sensibilities" would include knowing the law of the state you live in (ignorantia juris non excusat). See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

If one wants to protect one's rights, it behooves one to know what he is seeking to protect.

I don't need to use Google to know that anyone can become the victim of an ignorant law enforcement officer. Just the other day some deputy told a woman she was required to cover herself while breastfeeding her child (I think they should have to pay a fine every time they tell a citizen something wrong about the law. Maybe if it hit them where it hurts, they'd quit doing it).

[Duke for Mayor]

Friends of Karl and Tip practicing for the Revolution:

http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/bullets-w...

woof

[tranpsosition]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
It is your legalese that is pointless.
There is nothing nuanced about the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
There is nothing new about a citizen or group of citizens filing suit against bans.
Frequently, however, the NRA and other gun rights groups beat the average citizen to the punch, or join in the suit.
Quite certain your services will not be required.

Bless.

Does this work for everything?

If I say, with brash and empty confidence, that copyright law is copyright law and there is nothing nuanced about it, can I skip work for the rest of the week and go on vacation instead?

Ignoring the details in a complex system seems like a beautiful way to live, in a simple sort of way.

[Duke for Mayor]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>There is nothing nuanced about the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Having read your gravely mistaken cut and paste conclusions regarding the Heller and McDonald holdings and their potential application in other circumstances such as New York's new legislation, this statement of yours pretty much clarifies where the errors are occurring.

woof

[Che Reagan Christ]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
Ratified 1791.
Of course, the copyright symbol is for laughs.
What a dolt.

Wrong again.

[Che Reagan Christ]

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Inducing panic requires an underlying "illegal offense". They could try disorderly conduct under the "engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities" part, but I would think "ordinarily sensibilities" would include knowing the law of the state you live in (ignorantia juris non excusat). See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68
If one wants to protect one's rights, it behooves one to know what he is seeking to protect.
I don't need to use Google to know that anyone can become the victim of an ignorant law enforcement officer. Just the other day some deputy told a woman she was required to cover herself while breastfeeding her child (I think they should have to pay a fine every time they tell a citizen something wrong about the law. Maybe if it hit them where it hurts, they'd quit doing it).

If you agree with me, then why are you continuing the discussion?

[FKA Reader]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

Friends of Karl and Tip practicing for the Revolution:
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/bullets-w...
woof

I saw that.

Makes you wonder if maybe we need an intelligence test along with the background check.

Apparently the fellas were drunk, as well.

[Che Reagan Christ]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
I saw that.
Makes you wonder if maybe we need an intelligence test along with the background check.
Apparently the fellas were drunk, as well.

I bet these were some of the high IQ Romney voters we keep hearing about.

[Kemosahbe]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
Ratified 1791.
Of course, the copyright symbol is for laughs.
What a dolt.

Constitution written in 1787.

Ratified by enough states to take effect June 21, 1788.

Took effect March 4, 1789.

Ratified by all thirteen original states May 1790.

Glad I could also clear that up for you. No charge again.

[Duke for Mayor]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet these were some of the high IQ Romney voters we keep hearing about.

Someone will be filing a 1026 in a few months with the OSC.

woof