Gun Control Under Obama
Adif understanding

United States

#3323 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The recent Court of Appeals decision is a change from precedent. Regardless of what they held, what President Obama did was in accordance with the state of the law at the time he did it.
But isn't this interesting? The POTUS took action and it was found to be unconstitutional by a court. No one had to shoot anyone or anything. Isn't that neat how that works?
It is not a change from precedent. There has never been a precedent that allowed a president to wait until congress closed for the day and appoint a post. Congress has to not be in session in order for any appointments to be made. That simply was not the case in these situations and this courts ruling is completely consistent with the state of law at the time, at present and any point previous in our history.

As for this being resolved without gunfire, it very well could be necessary and needed had the court rejected the constitution and history.

Just saying unprecedented does not make it so.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#3324 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Despite long winded judges who may make it SEEM complicated, it really isn't.
You're making a simple statement like that doesn't change the fact that indeed, it is.

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#3325 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you actually read Heller?
around ten times, yes.

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#3326 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You have left out the word "militia" from your argument. But that is typical of your style.
convenient, isn't it?

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#3327 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heller explains it very well (though a lot longer winded than it needed to be). Think prefatory clause and operative clause.
Heller explains Scalia's conclusions regarding the individual right to bear arms, because that is what was at issue under the facts of the case.

Scalia dances around the historical context of the amendment and the additional collective rights concerning the "militia" in dicta.

Those issues are left for another day, which likely we will never see, because militias are essentially non-existent, at least in the forms existing at the time the amendment was drafted.

woof

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3328 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
convenient, isn't it?
woof
Expecting you idiots to click the link was an exercise in futility.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3329 Jan 26, 2013
Why attempts to abrogate Second Amendment rights will FAIL and FAIL MISERABLY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Every U.S. citizen should be outraged.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#3330 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It is not a change from precedent. There has never been a precedent that allowed a president to wait until congress closed for the day and appoint a post. Congress has to not be in session in order for any appointments to be made. That simply was not the case in these situations and this courts ruling is completely consistent with the state of law at the time, at present and any point previous in our history.
As for this being resolved without gunfire, it very well could be necessary and needed had the court rejected the constitution and history.
Just saying unprecedented does not make it so.
Evans v. Stephens, 11th Circuit 2004, cited but rejected by the Court in the Noel Canning decision.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinion... $file/12-1115-1417096.pdf

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3331 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heller explains it very well (though a lot longer winded than it needed to be). Think prefatory clause and operative clause.
Heller also explains that "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean that gun ownership and use can't be regulated, doesn't it?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3332 Jan 26, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Click the link, short bus.
I did. Did you? The word militia was conveniently left out of their argument as well.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3333 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It is not a change from precedent. There has never been a precedent that allowed a president to wait until congress closed for the day and appoint a post. Congress has to not be in session in order for any appointments to be made. That simply was not the case in these situations and this courts ruling is completely consistent with the state of law at the time, at present and any point previous in our history.
As for this being resolved without gunfire, it very well could be necessary and needed had the court rejected the constitution and history.
Just saying unprecedented does not make it so.
Nor does saying it isn't make it not.

The Court of Appeals completely redefined the term "recess."

It is amazing to see the Right slowly making it a legitimate option to revolt any time they might disagree with a court ruling.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3334 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor does saying it isn't make it not.
The Court of Appeals completely redefined the term "recess."
It is amazing to see the Right slowly making it a legitimate option to revolt any time they might disagree with a court ruling.
But...haven't you been lecturing us that the Courts are the final arbiter with respect to the Constitution?
Are you trying to say that the some Court rulings are improper?

Say it isn't so.

/s
Adif understanding

United States

#3335 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Heller explains Scalia's conclusions regarding the individual right to bear arms, because that is what was at issue under the facts of the case.
Scalia dances around the historical context of the amendment and the additional collective rights concerning the "militia" in dicta.
Those issues are left for another day, which likely we will never see, because militias are essentially non-existent, at least in the forms existing at the time the amendment was drafted.
woof
Wow, just WOW!.

Are you reading the annotated version for the liberally insane or criminally blind or something? The Heller opinion spells out very well that there is an individual right, that the term militia means any able bodied person within an age group capable of providing for the common defense. A modern version of this is registering for the selective service so you can be drafted. It even goes on to spell out in clear wording that the second amendment is not limited to any militia.

I'm not sure you are reading the same document produced by the court nor are you reading the same version everyone else has access to. If you are, then it is only logical to surmise that you are purposely ignoring clearly presented elements of it in order to maintain some delusion of ideology that shouldn't exist.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3336 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>...I'm not sure you are reading the same document produced by the court nor are you reading the same version everyone else has access to. If you are, then it is only logical to surmise that you are purposely ignoring clearly presented elements of it in order to maintain some delusion of ideology that shouldn't exist.
“Ideology isn’t rejected when it conflicts with truth; truth is rejected when it conflicts with their ideology.”

-- Selwyn Duke

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3337 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. Did you? The word militia was conveniently left out of their argument as well.
Do you ever stop lying?
From the link:

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:"

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3338 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know how that is.... My three year-old grandson is hot for Dora I think. He'll stand in front of the TV for the whole show :)
"We did it! We did it!" "No, Swiper, don't swipe!" "The map, the map, it's the map, the map."

Sponge Bob is forbidden in this house.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3339 Jan 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
But...haven't you been lecturing us that the Courts are the final arbiter with respect to the Constitution?
Are you trying to say that the some Court rulings are improper?
Say it isn't so.
/s
Nope. Not at all. I was responding to a poster's claim that President Obama had brazenly acted against the constitution. That is simply not true. When he made his appointments, he was relying on prior court precedent that the Court of Appeals in this case decided to disagree with. At this point, the Court of Appeals decision is the law for that case. We will see what the SCOTUS has to say about it.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3340 Jan 26, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Do you ever stop lying?
From the link:
"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:"
Lying? Click on the link and find the word "militia." Then come back and apologize.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3341 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not at all. I was responding to a poster's claim that President Obama had brazenly acted against the constitution. That is simply not true. When he made his appointments, he was relying on prior court precedent that the Court of Appeals in this case decided to disagree with. At this point, the Court of Appeals decision is the law for that case. We will see what the SCOTUS has to say about it.
"You lie!" -- Joe Wilson
Adif understanding

United States

#3342 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Evans v. Stephens, 11th Circuit 2004, cited but rejected by the Court in the Noel Canning decision.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinion... $file/12-1115-1417096.pdf
woof
Yep, I was wrong. I guess since 2004, there has been a precedent to appoint during intrasession recesses. That is a change. I would argue it is a precedent that never should have existed and claim that the DC circuit ruling it sound and logical.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Liberal War on Christians and Christmas Continu... 15 min They cannot kill ... 8
Trump endangers relations with China 19 min They cannot kill ... 4
144 Companies in 25 Different Countries 25 min They cannot kill ... 204
Trump's Adult families to get Welfare for Secre... 29 min GrowUp 23
Hoax lawsuit against Trump dropped.. 30 min Said she was 13-wow 12
God Help Us. Drumpf Is Clueless, And Impeachab... 45 min They cannot kill ... 31
Anthony Fremont "Drumpf" 2 hr Duke for Mayor 1
Trump the Crook/Liar 6 hr Reality Speaks 188
News Anti-Trump protesters march to Ohio Statehouse 6 hr Duke for Mayor 62

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages