Are you threatening me?
NRA feeling optimistic
- Thread starter Nihilo
- Start date
Someone needs to think up his own material it appears.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...to-Any-Group&p=4871149&viewfull=1#post4871149
Please link to a SCOTUS case.
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And I informed you that private property rights overrule Constitutional Rights (a Muslim can't kneel and pray on his rug in the aisle of a Christian Church during services against the wishes of the pastor nor can two people talk loudly in a movie theater after the manager tells them to quiet down).
If I didn't know that you're serious I'd laugh.
Surely you must be able to find one SCOTUS case that said even though a private property owner didn't want a gun toting customer on his property, that violated the 2nd Amendment rights of the gun carrier?
Here's the law in the State of Colorado, which is pretty much identical to what I've been saying:
Private Prohibitions
Private educational institutions, private property owners, private tenants, private employers,
and private business entities may choose to allow or prohibit open carry or concealed handguns as
they see fit. In order to avoid confusion, posting a notice is recommended. Even without a posted
notice; however, a private business or landowner can ask an individual to leave his or her property
at any time. If the individual refuses, he or she may be charged with third degree criminal trespass,which can be a class 1 petty offense, a class 3 misdemeanor, or a class 5 felony, depending on the
circumstances.
6Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC, 271 P.3d 496 (Colo. 2012)
– 3
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/si...minalJusticeGunLawsRighttoDenyWeaponsMemo.pdf
Perhaps you should be knowledgeable of the law before you're allowed to go out in public?
And I informed you that private property rights overrule Constitutional Rights (a Muslim can't kneel and pray on his rug in the aisle of a Christian Church during services against the wishes of the pastor nor can two people talk loudly in a movie theater after the manager tells them to quiet down).
If I didn't know that you're serious I'd laugh.
Surely you must be able to find one SCOTUS case that said even though a private property owner didn't want a gun toting customer on his property, that violated the 2nd Amendment rights of the gun carrier?
Here's the law in the State of Colorado, which is pretty much identical to what I've been saying:
Private Prohibitions
Private educational institutions, private property owners, private tenants, private employers,
and private business entities may choose to allow or prohibit open carry or concealed handguns as
they see fit. In order to avoid confusion, posting a notice is recommended. Even without a posted
notice; however, a private business or landowner can ask an individual to leave his or her property
at any time. If the individual refuses, he or she may be charged with third degree criminal trespass,which can be a class 1 petty offense, a class 3 misdemeanor, or a class 5 felony, depending on the
circumstances.
6Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC, 271 P.3d 496 (Colo. 2012)
– 3
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/si...minalJusticeGunLawsRighttoDenyWeaponsMemo.pdf
Perhaps you should be knowledgeable of the law before you're allowed to go out in public?
Please link to a SCOTUS decision. You know that SCOTUS provides the definitive interpretation of the highest law in the land, so please provide where SCOTUS has said what you are saying.
They think that they do, but if you knew anything about the founding of our nation, you'd know that SCOTUS rulings are only meant to deal with individual cases, not set a precedent.
I see that you can't come up with a Supreme Court case that says Constitutional Rights over rule private property rights.
I'm glad that you didn't waste your time looking, as there aren't any.
Here, let me show you an example. Throughout this thread I've provided the opinion that "mouse guns" are not "arms" according to the Constitution, because of this SCOTUS case: United States v. Miller. By the same reasoning the Second Amendment does protect the right to keep and to bear SAWs, which are heavy-barrelled fully automatic rifles carried by one warrior, used to protect squads, by providing suppressing and covering fire. In fact, whereas I feel fairly confident that mouse guns are not protected arms, I feel quite confident that SAWs are protected.
Now you try. Point us to the SCOTUS case that supports your view here, that, "private property rights overrule Constitutional Rights." I know you can do it.
Per your link:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act.
Sorry, but that case has absolutely nothing to do with private property rights (at least not in the context that we're discussing private property rights).
In the event that you didn't read (or read it and forgot) what our founders thought about the importance of private property rights, here it is again:
Resolution Acknowledging the Inalienable Rights of Private Property
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=1099
Phew. What we're all looking for in support of your position, is a link to a SCOTUS case, not, and I repeat, not, a link to "Wallbuilders-dot-com." OK?
No cases of such have made it anywhere near the Supreme Court because it's been well established throughout our once great nation's history how important private property rights are.
Let's talk about Starbucks and their anti firearms policy shall we? While I loath SBUX for their stance on numerous liberal issues, they do have the right to tell people what they can and cannot bring into their stores.
Gun owners surrender to Starbucks, respect anti-firearms policy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/21/gun-owners-surrender-starbucks-understand-firearms/
Let me repeat the above for those who don't catch on very quickly:
Gun owners surrender to Starbucks, respect anti-firearms policy
Note that it didn't say "Gun owners vow to fight their violation of 2nd Amendment rights all the way to the Supreme Court."
I have an idea:
Why don't you take your Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred shot range model air rifle and go into Starbucks, order some Ovaltine and plop your gun down on a table and tell them after they ask you to leave that you're not going to because constitutional rights overrule private property rights? If you do that, I promise to take up a fund here on TOL to bail you out of jail.
Objectively there is only one supreme opinion on the matter in the USA and that is the opinion of the SCOTUS. And you continue to fail to link your opinion to even a single SCOTUS case. And that renders your view, merely an opinion offered by an anonymous internet poster on an internet forum.
Let me attempt to explain to you how the judicial system in the United States works:
Let's say that you take your Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred shot range model air rifle into Starbucks, place it on the table while you're drinking your Ovaltine and are asked to leave. You argue that it's your constitutional right to carry a firearm anywhere that you please. After you're released from jail on criminal trespass charges, your lawyer (who flunked law school and has no concept of private property rights) files a suit against Starbucks, claiming that they denied Ralphie of his constitutional rights.
Before your case is even considered to be heard by SCOTUS, it has to go through various courts (Superior Court, State Supreme Court, US Court of Appeals).
Hopefully this will help you understand the US Court system a bit better and why cases like yours never have and hopefully never will be heard by SCOTUS.
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts
Out of bullets days ago, and yet continues to pull his trigger. "aCultureWarrior"
Thank goodness we have laws that protect innocent people from people who have absolutely no common sense.
You can go back to worshipping your false god now: the NRA.
*click! click! click!*
'May as well just throw the durn thing at me for all the good it'll do you, empty like that.
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/21/52095...rs-hearing-protection-or-public-safety-threat
The right answer is: Hearing protection
The right answer is: Hearing protection
It's the South, so it doesn't mean as much as if a northern state passed such a law, but it is good news still. 
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...om&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...om&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial
The United States of America is a dangerous place for escaped convicts.
Note, "a homeowner saw the two trying to steal his car, and with help from a neighbor, held the two escapees at gunpoint."
If you're going to break out of jail, best do it in Europe or some other pansy country.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...led-2-guards-captured-in-tennessee-police-say
Note, "a homeowner saw the two trying to steal his car, and with help from a neighbor, held the two escapees at gunpoint."
If you're going to break out of jail, best do it in Europe or some other pansy country.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...led-2-guards-captured-in-tennessee-police-say
All around, not as anti-life as most gun violence editorials I've read over the last 10-15 years. Medical doctors are getting better education on just what it necessarily means, that life is an unalienable right endowed to us by God. It means we can keep and bear arms, that's the crib sheet version, for anyone curious.
One of the quoted MD's:
One thought. Pill bottles and cigrit (Bubbles) lighters are "child-proof." All modern guns have a "safety," but while the safety is a mechanical interlock that prevents any loaded gun from firing, it is easily and simply disengaged in all cases (which I suppose prevents anybody ever dying because they couldn't get the safety to disengage in time). Pill bottle and cigrit lighter type "safeties" are too difficult to work under stress, which is exactly the time one might need a gun, in self-defense situations. So is there a type of safety that is not physically difficult to disengage, but is unintuitive or hidden, so that kids cannot disengage them by accident, or even on purpose? Not because it's like a pill bottle or cigrit lighter, but because they would never "find" it, or think of it?
I don't know, just a thought.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html
One of the quoted MD's:
I'm all for safe storage, although I'm pretty sure that penalties for unsafe storage, shouldn't ever even approach penalties for deliberately shooting someone.
One thought. Pill bottles and cigrit (Bubbles) lighters are "child-proof." All modern guns have a "safety," but while the safety is a mechanical interlock that prevents any loaded gun from firing, it is easily and simply disengaged in all cases (which I suppose prevents anybody ever dying because they couldn't get the safety to disengage in time). Pill bottle and cigrit lighter type "safeties" are too difficult to work under stress, which is exactly the time one might need a gun, in self-defense situations. So is there a type of safety that is not physically difficult to disengage, but is unintuitive or hidden, so that kids cannot disengage them by accident, or even on purpose? Not because it's like a pill bottle or cigrit lighter, but because they would never "find" it, or think of it?
I don't know, just a thought.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html
I'm sure that gun companies have been trying to figure that out for years