Marijuana decision expected any day

The California Aggie ^ | 03/03/2005 | JEFF KATZ

[robertpaulsen]

"Yes, and your fraudulent interpretation of Madison was refuted."

If by "refuted" you mean that you held your breath, stomped your foot, and whined that it wasn't true, then yeah, it was refuted.

Now, if by "refuted" you mean that you presented a logical argument, that you carefully dissected Madison's words, that you supported your interpretation with outside quotes and cites, and that you supplied proof with actual court cases that reflected your interpretation, then, no, it was not refuted.

Not even close.

[Ken H]

Even in the states that have concealed carry, there are exceptions such as schools, libraries, churches, government buildings, workplaces, etc. Ever ask yourself why? How did that happen?

Perhaps because the legislators wrote the law that way?

Those arguments were made with a straight face. The judge accepted those arguments, didn't he? Whatever reasons were given for banning concealed carry in those areas seemed to work, didn't it?

Are you saying the judges made up those restrictions rather than State law?

Incorporating the second amendment would "nationalize" those restrictions to all libraries, and all schools, and all workplaces. Is that what you want, rather than have each state decide?

Unless you can show where the courts have independently imposed those restrictions, your point is bogus.

[Ken H]

Now, if by "refuted" you mean that you presented a logical argument, that you carefully dissected Madison's words, that you supported your interpretation with outside quotes and cites, and that you supplied proof with actual court cases that reflected your interpretation, then, no, it was not refuted.

Your hairbrained interpretation was refuted with all of the above by myself and other posters.

I'm surprised you still persist in that fraud.

[robertpaulsen]

"Perhaps because the legislators wrote the law that way?"

And they wrote it that way because .....?

Because arguments were presented to them, with a straight face, on why concealed carry should be prohibited at those locations.

So don't give me your malarky about how an activist liberal judge would not accept a similar agument for banning concealed carry at a facility not covered by the legislation.

[Ken H]

Because arguments were presented to them, with a straight face, on why concealed carry should be prohibited at those locations.

The legislators didn't cite the Ninth Amendment, AFAIK.

So don't give me your malarky about how an activist liberal judge would not accept a similar agument for banning concealed carry at a facility not covered by the legislation.

They could do so now. It's called legislating from the bench. Your idea that they would use an incorporated Second Amendment to extend gun bans is yet another example of your junk constitutionalism.

[robertpaulsen]

"They could do so now. It's called legislating from the bench."

Correct. And that decision would only affect that state. But incorporate the second amendment and have some future activist liberal USSC make that determination and the decision affects every state.

"Your idea that they would use an incorporated Second Amendment to extend gun bans is yet another example of your junk constitutionalism."

Uh huh. I bet you said the same thing to the anti-abortion and the anti-sodomy crowd about the privacy clause. And the anti-CFR people, the pro-Confederate Flag people, the anti-flag burners, the pro-Ten commandment people, and the "under God" people on the first amendment. And on and on.

Ken H says, "Not to worry, people. The USSC will not engage in junk constitutionalism. I promise. You can trust the federal government to protect your RKBA. Believe me."

[Ken H]

And that decision would only affect that state. But incorporate the second amendment and have some future activist liberal USSC make that determination and the decision affects every state.

False reasoning. If a judge makes such a ruling based on the Second Amendment, then by definition they have incorporated it.

Anyway, I don't believe for a minute you are making a sincere argument. It's disingenuous to claim to be concerned that the Second Amendment would be used to limit gun rights. No one is buying what you're peddling.

[ApesForEvolution]

Are you a pothead K y r?

[ApesForEvolution]

The Constitution was replaced with, among other things, politicks call USSC Justices. It was done by COMMIE RATS and RINOS over a relatively long period of time.

The result is this facsimile of America that we have today...

[tacticalogic]

Your hairbrained interpretation was refuted with all of the above by myself and other posters.

It's also refuted by any standard reference on English grammar. There is no accepted meaning of the term "rather than" that is consistent with the meaning he attempts to attribute to it in order to make his "interpretation" comprehensible. The only argument he's made that is logically consistent with his conclusions is that "original intent" is irrelevant.

[robertpaulsen]

"If a judge makes such a ruling based on the Second Amendment, then by definition they have incorporated it."

Only if they're ruling on a state statute. And they can incorporate on any state gun statute that's challenged.

"It's disingenuous to claim to be concerned that the Second Amendment would be used to limit gun rights."

What's disingenuous? I truly believe it. I truly fear it.

I look at what the USSC has done to the first amendment, the fourth amendment, recently the eighth amendment, privacy, etc. and I am not encouraged at all that they can be trusted with the second amendment.

How in the wide world of sports could you entrust the USSC with the second amendment? Seriously. What makes you think the federal government (both Congress and the USSC) can be trusted in interpreting words such as "arms", "keep", "bear" and "infringe"?

I'm starting to think you're some Sarah Brady plant, for crying out loud. That you would trust the federal government over the state?

[P_A_I]

Even in the states that have concealed carry, there are exceptions such as schools, libraries, churches, government buildings, workplaces, etc. Ever ask yourself why? How did that happen?

Those arguments were made with a straight face. The judge accepted those arguments, didn't he? Whatever reasons were given for banning concealed carry in those areas seemed to work, didn't it?

Incorporating the second amendment would "nationalize" those restrictions to all libraries, and all schools, and all workplaces.

Is that what you want, rather than have each state decide?

Oh, but robertpaulsen, judges wouldn't extend that ban to public parks, shopping malls, restaurants, bars, whatever, -- finally banning it everywhere. Uh huh.

Give it time. That's the one thing liberals got -- time.

"legislating from the bench." would only affect that state.
But incorporate the second amendment and have some future activist liberal USSC make that determination and the decision affects every state.
--- [you can say] the same thing to the anti-abortion and the anti-sodomy crowd about the privacy clause.
And the anti-CFR people, the pro-Confederate Flag people, the anti-flag burners, the pro-Ten commandment people, and the "under God" people on the first amendment.

And on and on.
robertpaulsen,robertpaulsen,robertpaulsen

---

You do go on and on, fer sure, with your crackpot imaginings that "incorporating" the 2nd would lead to further anti-gun laws.

The USSC is in a self made bind on the "incorporation" theory, and they know it. - So do you.

If they play the incorporation game, then the plain words of the 2nd must be obeyed. NO infringements.

The feds & courts will continue to play the 'individual right, but a severely regulated right' game, -- as long as we the people allow them to.

Although it appears the jig may be up. -- Montanta intends to issue a clear challenge to the NFA of '34 this year.
Such a Montana law, one that in effect negates part of the 1934 'Act', will call your states rights bluff, paulsen.
Who will you back, Montana or the Feds?

[P_A_I]

Anti-federal bills move forward in House (Montana)
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1344245/posts

[Ken H]

I look at what the USSC has done to the first amendment, the fourth amendment, recently the eighth amendment, privacy, etc. and I am not encouraged at all that they can be trusted with the second amendment

USSC struck down State laws which, in their opinion, violated those amendments. They have not independently imposed restrictions on free speech based on the First Amendment, for example, as you fear (so you claim) they might with the Second.

Only robertpaulsen would claim to fear that an Amendment designed to protect the RKBA would be used to infringe the RKBA. Like I said, no one is buying your sophistry.

[jmc813]

Or sodomy?

Why in the world should oral sex be illegal?

[robertpaulsen]

"If they play the incorporation game, then the plain words of the 2nd must be obeyed. NO infringements."

Correct. There will be no infringement on the right of a state to form an armed militia. After incorporation, the state will not be allowed to infringe on the state's forming of a militia.

What, did you think that would mean that there would be no infringements on an individual RKBA?

BWAHAHAHAHA! What makes you think that? Do you realize that every lower federal court ruling in the history of the U.S. (save one) has concluded that the second amendment does NOT protect an individual right?

Geez Louise. With all that legal precedent, why oh why do you think the USSC would rule it to be an individual right? Because you WANT them to? Because if they don't, the populace will rise in armed violence against the government?

"Who will you back, Montana or the Feds?"

Got some specifics on the case? How am I supposed to answer your question when I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about?

[robertpaulsen]

"USSC struck down State laws which, in their opinion, violated those amendments."

And they were able to do so only because those amendments were incorporated. Without incorporation, the state laws are only unconstitutional if they violate the state constitution.

That's my point. Don't gloss over it. Five justices of the USSC interpreted the U.S. Constitution and declared that all state laws against abortion, sodomy, etc. were unconstitutional. Do we want them doing that for the second amendment?

If incorporated, the USSC may rule that the second amendment does not protect concealed carry. Sure, the states may allow concealed carry. But as soon as there is a legal challenge to that in federal court (let's make up a "right to non-intimidation" -- hey, it'll be something), and if they win in the USSC, concealed carry is over and done in all states.

That's all I'm saying.

[robertpaulsen]

Why in the world should oral sex be illegal?"

Geez, why can't you ride a horse backwards in Virginia? I don't know why states write laws the way they do.

But shouldn't a state be allowed to write constitutional laws without federal interference? Here I thought you were such a big states rights guy and now you want the feds to step in and tell the states how to run things?

You're scarin' me.

[Ken H]

And they were able to do so only because those amendments were incorporated.

Correct.

That's my point. Don't gloss over it. Five justices of the USSC interpreted the U.S. Constitution and declared that all state laws against abortion, sodomy, etc. were unconstitutional. Do we want them doing that for the second amendment?

Yes, non-gun grabbers want State laws infringing the RKBA to be voided.

If incorporated, the USSC may rule that the second amendment does not protect concealed carry. Sure, the states may allow concealed carry. But as soon as there is a legal challenge to that in federal court (let's make up a "right to non-intimidation" -- hey, it'll be something), and if they win in the USSC, concealed carry is over and done in all states.

The "right to non-intimidation" would have nothing to do with basing the decision on the Second, incorporated or not. You have been arguing that the Second Amendment itself could be the basis for striking down State laws protecting the RKBA. That's why I don't buy your stated "fears".

[P_A_I]

You do go on and on, fer sure, with your crackpot imaginings that "incorporating" the 2nd would lead to further anti-gun laws.
The USSC is in a self made bind on the "incorporation" theory, and they know it. - So do you.

If they play the incorporation game, then the plain words of the 2nd must be obeyed. NO infringements.
> The feds & courts will continue to play the 'individual right, but a severely regulated right' game, -- as long as we the people allow them to.
Although it appears the jig may be up. -- Montanta intends to issue a clear challenge to the NFA of '34 this year. Such a Montana law, one that in effect negates part of the 1934 'Act', will call your states rights bluff, paulsen.

Who will you back, Montana or the Feds?

Correct. There will be no infringement on the right of a state to form an armed militia. After incorporation, the state will not be allowed to infringe on the state's forming of a militia. What, did you think that would mean that there would be no infringements on an individual RKBA? BWAHAHAHAHA! What makes you think that?

Simple logic dictates that result, as your maniacal attempt at laughing it off makes clear. You're playing the clown.

Do you realize that every lower federal court ruling in the history of the U.S. (save one) has concluded that the second amendment does NOT protect an individual right?

I realize that you are very happy with that situation, yes.. The question remains, why do you think it proves your point?

Geez Louise. With all that legal precedent, why oh why do you think the USSC would rule it to be an individual right? Because you WANT them to? Because if they don't, the populace will rise in armed violence against the government?

The Justice Dept finally came to that same individual right conclusion recently, as you know. Your pretense that bad precedent makes law is genuine 'Geez Louise' dumb robert style material..

"Who will you back, Montana or the Feds?" Got some specifics on the case? How am I supposed to answer your question when I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about?

Are you pretending you didn't see that thread previously? - Yeah, sure.