Monday, October 19, 2015

And we've negated the enforcement of your tyrannical laws with armed civil disobedience in every state you mention. I guess the next move is up to you, collectivist puke.

"We have begun winning at the state level — most recently in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, New York and Oregon, where background check laws have been strengthened without banning guns."
Right. None of which they dare enforce without fear of being shot.


Anonymous said...

Pretty sure they just upheld the banning of a whole-lotta guns in NY.

Luis Castillo said...

What we now have is an extremely alarming combination that we have never before seen or experienced. Our constitution was designed specifically to maintain balance between the three branches of government, a separation of powers, to protect liberty.

It’s to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty.What is threatening this liberty is that on one side we have Obama's lack of transparency, blatant lying, and disregard for the constitution despite what he says publicly. On the other side we have a Congress that is unwilling to carry out it's responsibility as set forth in the constitution.

KUETSA said...

In NY they banned all the firearms and magazines that matter - firearms and magazines that enabled citizens with tactical abilities. Ways were found around some of the laws, but if politicians had envisioned these ways - they would've closed them. If tactical abilities are taken from citizens - the second amendment is effectively repealed. Not that, that fact, prevents complicit courts from upholding the unconstitutional NY SAFE ACT.

Anonymous said...

I don't even think they fear being shot, Mike. I don;t think that is why they aren't "enforcing" these pathetic advances in gun control. I truly think they fear having to defend the prosecutions while they go on and afterward as a matter of case law. I think they fear seeing their precious political talking points biting the dust.

Jerry The Geek said...

I SO love the Star Tribune with its Liberal editorial agenda ... and then the readers stand up and trash their illogical arguments.

ONE of the counter-arguments which their readers did not mention was Universal Background Checks, which have so far been so badly formulated that they constitute ipso facto registration since the GUNS need to be identified, which has no bearing on the accountability of the BUYERS.

Another point which was poorly addressed was "Gun Suicides". When rights of access to guns are highly restricted, the suicide rate does not go down (although the rate of "suicide by guns" does go down ... often misleadingly cited as an argument for gun control). The fact is, potential suicides WILL find a way; it's just usually more painful and less humane.

But the Liberal gun-grabbers ignore these counterpoints as either irrelevant or counter-productive.

That last term means "it doesn't meet their pre-determined agenda".

Anonymous said...

"Pretty sure they just upheld the banning of a whole-lotta guns in NY.". Yep. They sure did. It was necessary for this intolerable act to reach the United States Supreme Court. There, the act will likely fall, considering the precedent already set.

Anonymous said...

@KUETSA - "In NY they banned all the firearms and magazines that matter - firearms and magazines that enabled citizens with tactical abilities."

Trust me on this 100%, the NY SAFE Act has done little to nothing to disarm anyone with any amount of moral integrity or backbone. I'd go further and say from what I've seen visiting over the last week that if anything the folks I'd want next to and around me when something goes bad are as well armed as they've ever been.

In fact, it's likely that many of them would not be as well armed as they are now since before the "SAFE" act there was a difference in the legal side of owning a stock semi-auto AR-15 and and SBR with a DIAS. Now not so much so why not go big...

S. Adams said...

"Anonymous said...
Pretty sure they just upheld the banning of a whole-lotta guns in NY."

So? You may want to re-read the blog headline "And we've negated the enforcement......"

Sheepdog said...

"Anonymous said...I don't even think they fear being shot, Mike..... I truly think they fear having to defend the prosecutions while they go on and afterward as a matter of case law".

Why would they fear prosecuting? If the case goes to a jury trial, how many pro 2A jurors do you think would make it onto that jury panel? On appeal, how many pro 2A judges will there be to hear the appeal? Many Judges [as do many legislators] could care less about the Constitution and will 'develop' a craftily worded legal opinion which sides with their own anti-gun agenda, allowing them to 'justify' an un-Constitutional ruling. The case law then favors the prosecutors.

The Courts are no friend of the 2A.

Anonymous said...

The author (Heather Martens) of this drivel is well-known as an anti-Second Amendment commie-lib in the Twin Cities. If it has to do with liberty, she's against it.

Anonymous said...

I agree the dcourt is no friend to gun rights. But if what you said holds true, why is it that even SCOTUS had to finally TAKE what become known as Heller and actually tell the most truth within a judiciary that has ever been told about this set of rights? See, while not being a friend, heck even hostile, the time to pay the piper came due. even the judiciary had to do some admitting. It could not punt anymore, it had to finally answer. True enough, even Heller is problematic on some fronts, and one has to love the "at war" status between Heller and McDonald, but the point holds.

Even the judicial hold is failing....just as the legislative hold is failing. The natives grow restless - and they KNOW IT. Hate to break it to ya, but case law now favors us. We are even winning on their home field, with their own paid off refs. We are not the ones living in fear anymore, of a decision. THEY are.

In order to play gun control now, they have to endanger First Amendment case law, specifically the entire body of Incorporation doctrine application. A tiny little sentence (I believe snuck in on purpose) binds them now. "The Second Amendment is no different.". It was right there that SCOTUS signaled the entire judiciary to apply STRICT scrutiny. Indeed, the robed kings signaled that they would themselves be applying Strict Scrutiny to cases lower courts refused to do so - via appeals to the highest court. As it was with Heller, only so many can be rejected absent explanation - and again because the natives eventually get restless.

It is time to GET restless! ANd it is time to flood the judiciary with cases - because that is what it takes for the judiciary to actually answer. It forces their hands - and their gavels.

Heller actually admits something - it admits the point you make alongside the one I do. It matters not if the court "likes" the Second. It doesn't even matter if jurists disagree with it. It binds them regardless of both or either.

The dominoes have already begun to fall my friend. The old ways of fearing the judiciary is now flipped. It is gun controllers who fear the jurisprudence - not those willing to defend inalienable rights.

Anonymous said...

When I don't want to serve on a jury I wear a gun related T-shirt. Doesn't have to be NRA related. One of my favs is a play on Tommy Hilfiger that has a Thompson over the Hilfiger red and white logo with the caption "Tommy Gun". I'm always the first to be excused often without anyone even asking me a question. "Voir Dire" my ***!

Naw, the courts aren't biased against guns, gun owners or the Second Amendment. Perish the thought!

Anonymous said...

I hasten to point out that when you say "could care less", you really mean "couldn't care less". The constant misstatement of that phrase proves most Americans don't really understand the English language. Once again, folks: It is "couldn't care less", not "could care less".

- Old Greybeard

Sheepdog said...

Heller was a 5/4 decision. Did that decision strictly state that"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? No. Far from it.

Had the dissenting Justices garnered one more justice to their side, we would be lamenting this case, and many previous pro 2A rulings from lower courts would have been affected.

That my friend, is the tenuousness of our reliance on court decisions.

For 'Old Graybeard'- I would say 'I could care less', but that is an apparent violation of the English language. And by the way, I am not anonymous.