Colorado federal judge dismisses part...

Colorado federal judge dismisses part of gun control lawsuit

There are 25 comments on the Canon City Daily Record Newspaper story from Nov 27, 2013, titled Colorado federal judge dismisses part of gun control lawsuit. In it, Canon City Daily Record Newspaper reports that:

A federal judge in Colorado on Wednesday dismissed part of a lawsuit filed against Gov. John Hickenlooper and the state challenging the legality of new gun-control measures.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Canon City Daily Record Newspaper.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#1 Nov 28, 2013

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2 Nov 28, 2013
This feral 'federal' judge needs to remember the oath that she has [supposedly] taken. The SUPREME LAW states unequivocally:

United States Constitution, 2nd article of Amendment, "Restrictive" clause:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Our 'servants' in government were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that right in ANY way, shape or form.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3 Nov 29, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
The SUPREME LAW states unequivocally:
United States Constitution, 2nd article of Amendment, "Restrictive" clause:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
Not the US Constitution, numbnuts.

PS:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4 Nov 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the US Constitution, numbnuts.
PS:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."--United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The United States vs William J. Cruikshank and others--Judge Woods,[later associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1880–87)], charged the jury as follows:...

"... The right to bear arms is also a right protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Every citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms, provided it is done for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner. A man who carries his arms openly, and for his own protection, or for any other lawful purpose, has as clear a right to do so as to carry his own watch or wear his own hat."

[House of Representatives, 43D Congress, 2nd Session, Report 261, Part 3 Louisiana Affairs. Report of the Select Committee on that Portion of the President's Message Relating to: The Condition of the South. Testimony taken by the Committee.]
Diogenes

UK

#6 Nov 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the US Constitution, numbnuts.
PS:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States
Once again, you idiot DICKWEED: YOU quote Obiter Dictum, and NOT the Ratio Decidendi, i.e., the DECISION itself.

Obiter Dictum is merely an opinion which is NOT a part of the decision, and therefore has ABSOLUTELY NO ability to affect future actions regarding the decision itself.

YOU therefore expose YOUR COMPLETE IGNORANCE of law!!!!!

You FKN IDIOT!!!
Diogenes

UK

#7 Nov 29, 2013
Satan Almighty wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF SPAMS HAVE YOU POSTED FROM THE 1800'S?
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
BETCHA YOU WILL SEE THIS QUOTE AGAIN, KEATS!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
Wipe your chin, dear!
Don't =>YOU<= forget to take a breath mint, ObamaCockBreath BOY!!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8 Nov 29, 2013
Diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you idiot DICKWEED:
Stick to what you know, bringing truck drivers to happy endings, and changing your alias and your proxy every time you need to have your stomach pumped.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#9 Nov 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stick to what you know, bringing truck drivers to happy endings, and changing your alias and your proxy every time you need to have your stomach pumped.
Vomited the vile and evil troll.
Truth

Kissimmee, FL

#10 Nov 29, 2013
We're not giving them up so you'll just have to come take them from us!......a - HA...... Checkmate. Hahaha. We are strong and you are weak. We have the Constitution on our side and you have Piers Morgan.... Hahahahahaha

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#11 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the US Constitution, numbnuts.

PS:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:..."

Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States
P.S.:

2nd amendment applies to the feds:

14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States, making the 2nd applicable to the States.

"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."

What if Scalia said we can't criticize Govt, would you accept that ? Yes, you would because you're a communist.

CLICK !

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12 Nov 30, 2013
Tory II wrote:
What if Scalia said we can't criticize Govt, would you accept that ? Yes, you would because you're a communist.
CLICK !
What if I said you had a unnatural attraction to young boys, would you accept that?

Yes, you would because you're a fascist!

Click!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#13 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What if I said you had a unnatural attraction to young boys, would you accept that?
Yes, you would because you're a fascist!
Click!
Yup, more gay childish drooling. Because that's all you've got. The FACTS certainly aren't on your side.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
The FACTS certainly aren't on your side.
231 versus 200.

Which is the larger number, Sodomight?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#15 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
231 versus 200.
Which is the larger number, Sodomight?
TRANSLATION:

I can't counter any of the FACTS. So I must revert to irrelevant and meaningless spewings. And this, because I don't know how our governmental system works.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#16 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What if I said you had a unnatural attraction to young boys, would you accept that?
Yes, you would because you're a fascist!
Click!
Name the town you are employed at, Officer...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
TRANSLATION:
YOu don't speak English well enough for yourself to try to translate for anyone else, Gay Davy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#19 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
I can't counter any of the FACTS..
I know, GayDavy.

That's why I keep hitting you with facts.

Like the fact that 231 is a larger number than 200, no matter how hard you try to deny it.

Maybe you should stick to denying the moon landing and speaking of your experience in being abducted and probed by aliens.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#20 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, GayDavy.
That's why I keep hitting you with facts.
Like the fact that 231 is a larger number than 200, no matter how hard you try to deny it.
Maybe you should stick to denying the moon landing and speaking of your experience in being abducted and probed by aliens.
What you call 'facts', others call unmitigated BS. You don't even know what a "fact" is.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#21 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call 'facts', others call unmitigated BS. You don't even know what a "fact" is.
It is a fact that 231 is larger than 200.

Wipe your chin dear.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#22 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
231 versus 200.
Which is the larger number, Sodomight?
Name the town you are employed at, Officer...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 1 hr Chicagoan by Birth 1,220
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 1 hr Le Jimbo 24
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a "paraly... 21 hr Jagermann 1
News Obama to seek healing in Orlando even as politi... Sun OK Barry 61
Freestanding B-e-l-f-a-s-t Sink Unit Jun 23 boyocuy 1
News The Latest: House GOP says electronic devices s... Jun 23 payme 2
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 22 Uncle Bens AWOLdaddy 68
More from around the web