Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

Devil505 wrote:Marbury v. Madison
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits. (my emphasis)

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

The SCOTUS , (being part of the third branch of our government).... means that the government does indeed have the authority to interpret what the founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution.

Marbury made the case that SCOTUS has judicial review . It doesn't allow the courts to re-write the law, nor interpret the law in a way in which the law was not intended. Don't get too excited, Dev. It doesn't give the courts the right to deny the second amendment rights to citizens by eliminating ammunition because that effectively infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no point to a gun that has no ammo.

Recall that free speech has many repugnant forms but most are protected. What is not protected is libel and slander and shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

The courts must review in a mannor prescribed by law and Marbury.

jpete wrote:As soon as you do ANYTHING that limits or restricts an individuals right to bear arms, then you violated the Constitution.

Dead wrong......Read the post above about Marbury v Madison which established the legality of Judicial Review which simply means that ANYTHING is constitutional if the Supreme Court SAYS it is. (Slavery, Separate but Equal education,...Hell if the SCOTUS said that all underwear must be worn OUTSIDE of your pants, that would be both Constitutional & enforceable by the police.

jpete wrote:You can OWN anything you'd like. You want to have a small scale tactical nuke in your basement for all I care. If you can afford it, fine by me. If you USE it on me, then you've violated MY Constitutional right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness".

What planet are you from???
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... htm...Flat Earth Society for you again.

jpete wrote:You think SOME infringement is ok because you called it "regulation". Government favors this kind of double speak.

It's not what I THINK.....Since Marbury v Madison....It's the law of the land.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:As soon as you do ANYTHING that limits or restricts an individuals right to bear arms, then you violated the Constitution.

Dead wrong......Read the post above about Marbury v Madison which established the legality of Judicial Review which simply means that ANYTHING is constitutional if the Supreme Court SAYS it is. (Slavery, Separate but Equal education,...Hdell if the SCOTUS said that all underwear must be worn OUTSIDE of your pants, that would be both Constitutional & enforceable by the police.

jpete wrote:You can OWN anything you'd like. You want to have a small scale tactical nuke in your basement for all I care. If you can afford it, fine by me. If you USE it on me, then you've violated MY Constitutional right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness".

What planet are you from???
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... htm...Flat Earth Society for you again.

jpete wrote:You think SOME infringement is ok because you called it "regulation". Government favors this kind of double speak.

It's not what I THINK.....Since Marbury v Madison....It's the law of the land.

Dev, you are WRONG. Marbury allows review, not legislation from the bench. The intent of legislators must be paramount. There is no mistake about the intent of the second amendment except by idiots who want to deny civil rights to the people.

mikeandgerry wrote:Marbury made the case that SCOTUS has judicial review . It doesn't allow the courts to re-write the law, nor interpret the law in a way in which the law was not intended. Don't get too excited, Dev. It doesn't give the courts the right to deny the second amendment rights to citizens by eliminating ammunition because that effectively infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no point to a gun that has no ammo.

You are not a lawyer & have probably never taken a course in Constitutional Law. What Marbury v Madison means is that ANYTHING the SCOTUS decides is the FINAL WORD on the subject! (Finito....End of Discussion......CYA)
There is no higher authority to appeal to. Like I said above:

Devil505 wrote:if the SCOTUS said that all underwear must be worn OUTSIDE of your pants, that would be both Constitutional & enforceable by the police.

If you don't believe me, call any law school in the country.

mikeandgerry wrote:The courts must review in a mannor prescribed by law and Marbury.

The SCOTUS is not subject to any kind of review...PERIOD! (Hence the word ..SUPREME!)

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:Marbury made the case that SCOTUS has judicial review . It doesn't allow the courts to re-write the law, nor interpret the law in a way in which the law was not intended. Don't get too excited, Dev. It doesn't give the courts the right to deny the second amendment rights to citizens by eliminating ammunition because that effectively infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no point to a gun that has no ammo.

You are not a lawyer & have probably never taken a course in Constitutional Law. What Marbury v Madison means is that ANYTHING the SCOTUS decides is the FINAL WORD on the subject! (Finito....End of Discussion......CYA)
There is no higher authority to appeal to. Like I said above:

Devil505 wrote:if the SCOTUS said that all underwear must be worn OUTSIDE of your pants, that would be both Constitutional & enforceable by the police.

If you don't believe me, call any law school in the country.

mikeandgerry wrote:The courts must review in a mannor prescribed by law and Marbury.

The SCOTUS is not subject to any kind of review...PERIOD!

Except the review of a future court. Obviously, the founders didn't intend a ping-pong match.

I don't need to be a lawyer to understand English. You and your twisted friends in government don't have the right to redefine the language.

Get real.

Some of the opinions shown here are exactly the reason imo that there will be restrictions placed on the type of weapons that are allowed to be owned. I`m guessing that some may think that the guy in Pittsburgh had every right to kill those three officers if he thought they were coming to take away the AK-47 that they didn`t even know he had.

mikeandgerry wrote:I don't need to be a lawyer to understand English. You and your twisted friends in government don't have the right to redefine the language.

Get real.

Look Mike.....You are in no way capable of interpreting SCOTUS decisions if you don't even have a basic understanding of the case that created Judicial Review. Talk with Stockingful, pick up the telephone & call any law school & debate your nonsense with them.
Of course SCOTUS decisions can be overuled by later decisions.....Dred Scott...Plessy V Furgeson, etc.

My clear point is that there is no higher authority to decide Constitutionality questions than the SCOTUS...unless you have a time machine & can hope they'll reverse themselves in the future.

samhill wrote:Some of the opinions shown here are exactly the reason imo that there will be restrictions placed on the type of weapons that are allowed to be owned. I`m guessing that some may think that the guy in Pittsburgh had every right to kill those three officers if he thought they were coming to take away the AK-47 that they didn`t even know he had.

There is a small minority in this country Sam, who believe that government (we the people) has/have no authority to limit others in owning or using things that are dangerous. They evidently feel the state has no right to require drivers licenses or not allow Walmart to sell dynamite to the public in the paint dept....... They are a fringe element & just flat wrong@!

ErikLaurence wrote:permits?

What permits?

A permit can be denied, hence infringing on my rights.

I'm sorry, permits isn't the right word. What it really is is a stamp, a tax stamp. And when a responsible citizen pays that tax, he can take possession of the arms he has a right to.

Do you personally know someone who wanted to buy a NFA weapon or destructive device and were denied? I know of no one and no one I know knows of anyone ever being denied. Do you?

coaledsweat wrote:Do you personally know someone who wanted to buy a NFA weapon or destructive device and were denied? I know of no one and no one I know knows of anyone ever being denied. Do you?

(Raises his hand)

I do teacher!!!

Edit: I don't have the time to research it again right now (I posted it b4) but the federal government has a pretty extensive involvement in issuing nfa licenses (like for machine guns, etc) & a person must pass a pretty extensive background check by the FBI & I have know FBI Agents who have routinely recommended denial of these applications. (I know of no case where recommendations for denial were not supported) I'd have to research the authority of FBI vs BATF but I think FBI does the background checks themselves & turn the info over to BATF

samhill wrote:Some of the opinions shown here are exactly the reason imo that there will be restrictions placed on the type of weapons that are allowed to be owned. I`m guessing that some may think that the guy in Pittsburgh had every right to kill those three officers if he thought they were coming to take away the AK-47 that they didn`t even know he had.

Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. Please try again. That idiot deprived those officers of their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness".

That's the only law you need. Everything else is superfluous.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."---Tacitus

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."-- Mohandas Gandhi

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."-- Alexander Hamilton

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

Devil505 wrote:What planet are you from???
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... htm...Flat Earth Society for you again.

There was a time when even SUGGESTING that the Earth was round would have resulted in you being burned at the stake.

The flat Earth people have since been proven wrong, and there will be a time when people advocating for infringing on the people's right to bear arms will be proven wrong as well.

Don't worry though Devil, we don't burn people at the stake in America.......tarring and feather is traditional....

jpete wrote:Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. Please try again. That idiot deprived those officers of their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness".

That's the only law you need. Everything else is superfluous.

Bzzt to you jeff...Sam is right & YOU are wrong....& the idea that owning deadly weapons (Nukes, poison gas, whatever) is fine & that only their USE should be illegal, is such a silly & childish argument that it's not worth further debate.

What branch of the government has the POWER to make laws-Congress. What branch of the government gets to uphold and judge whether those laws are violated-Supreme Court. What branch of government can shut down Federal Courts- Congress. Just because a scotus judgment was made it in no way authorizes any law to supersede the CONSTITUTION regardless of what anyone thinks. This is one of the many reasons why we must return to the basic laws written by the forefathers and implement them as they were meant and stop letting the liberals attack our CONSTITUTION. This is another reason why we have people suing others for the slightest insult. Hate crimes is one of the most ridiculous laws on the books because if you physically assault a person there are already laws that address those issues. If you really want your rights limited and a government to tell what to do there are countrys that will be happy to take you and your taxes. If you don't like our laws and Constitution as they are written in plain english you need to find some other country that agrees with your agenda there are many and you have a choice and you probably won't have to change a thing. Our forefathers foreseen this foolishness and the liberals (socialists)say GEE I don't agree with that law so we'll just reinterpret to fit my agenda but they just keep banging their heads against the CONSTITUTION and IT IS MEANT TO LIMIT THE GOVERNMENTS POWER NOT THE PEOPLES RIGHTS OR POWER OVER THEM. You can argue all you want about the CONSTITUTION but the fact is any dispute of what is says is caused by those who don't understand simple english or have absolutely no common sense. Stop looking for things it doesn't say and look at what is does say and carry out what it dictates to those who break those laws and just maybe crime an disrespect for our laws will deter those who break them. Most laws we have now protect the criminals I say bring back the chain gangs for ALL CRIMINALS and get some of the state road work and maintenance done and any thing that needs to be done. I know I'm a little off topic here but if simple laws were followed and criminals knew they would forfeit their own lives because they intentionally took another it would be one heck of a deterrent don't you think.

Bill S.

Devil505 wrote:

coaledsweat wrote:Do you personally know someone who wanted to buy a NFA weapon or destructive device and were denied? I know of no one and no one I know knows of anyone ever being denied. Do you?

(Raises his hand)

I do teacher!!!

Edit: I don't have the time to research it again right now (I posted it b4) but the federal government has a pretty extensive involvement in issuing nfa licenses (like for machine guns, etc) & a person must pass a pretty extensive background check by the FBI & I have know FBI Agents who have routinely recommended denial of these applications. (I know of no case where recommendations for denial were not supported) I'd have to research the authority of FBI vs BATF but I think FBI does the background checks themselves & turn the info over to BATF

I didn't ask you. Now you have a detention for speaking out of turn.

Devil knows because of his long history working as an agent for a variety of agencies. My point is that it is a rare occurrence. A felon wouldn't bother, the Feds do a good job at weeding out morons. Since there has never been a crime committed with an NFA weapon, I would have to say the system works....... and better than most that the government has it's hands in.