Kolbe en banc decision

SWO Daddy · Feb 23, 2017

Brooklyn said:
And what have I been taking about for years other than an Article 5 convention?

Are you arguing a Constitutional Convention would save the Republic, or destroy it?

I think the latter.

kcbrown · Feb 24, 2017

Brooklyn said:
And what have I been taking about for years other than an Article 5 convention?

On that we're in complete agreement, although it wasn't clear whether what you were talking about was an Article V Convention or a Constitutional Convention. The former is an already-defined method of amending the existing Constitution, with rules specifying ratification requirements and such, whilst the latter is a method of defining a new Constitution, with no rules defined for it whatsoever.

I rather thought you'd been talking about the latter, which is a possibility in the aftermath of a civil war, but the former is something that should be done in order to prevent civil war.

Meanwhile... Reset is all that's left after the fall..It's not a choice.. so prepare .

Yep.

Silent Partner · Feb 24, 2017

Ted Cruz on 4 circuit decision

long version

short version

wolfwood · Feb 24, 2017

what can you say about that decesion other than it reeks of judicial activism. The core right is to defend against government tyranny and that opinon shows us that right is needed more than ever

fidelity · Feb 24, 2017

Silent Partner said:
long version

...

Thanks for posting. :thumbsup:

Folks, watch the "long" version, but from 5:19 to about 7:40. That's when Cruz digs into the 4th circuit and the lunacy of the Kolbe decision.

krucam · Feb 24, 2017

The Court after Scalia, The next “conservative” Justice may not save the Second Amendment

A sober assessment of the Second Amendment’s present status must precede any attempt at predicting a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee’s impact on the Second Amendment’s future. Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms.

The sober assessment is made more sober by the fact Alan Gura authored the above last September.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/t...ve-justice-may-not-save-the-second-amendment/

Jim12 · Feb 24, 2017

Dana Loesch was on FBN's with Maria B. this morning, excoriating the 4th Circuit for its Kolbe decision. Her bottom line: If you're going to rule on something as important as Constitutional Rights, you need to know what you're talking about. The judges displayed remarkable ignorance of firearms, how they work, and their history, and they ignored the facts. She also said that her child has a toy that looks like an AR-15. Should that be banned?

fightinbluhen51 · Feb 24, 2017

krucam said:
The Court after Scalia, The next “conservative” Justice may not save the Second Amendment

The sober assessment is made more sober by the fact Alan Gura authored the above last September.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/t...ve-justice-may-not-save-the-second-amendment/

And perhaps in a little sobering reality at the bottom:

Gura said:
Perhaps Justice Scalia opposed all this, not just philosophically but enough to do something about it; he couldn’t get four of his “conservative” colleagues along since at least 2010. Another deferential judicial minimalist unenthusiastic about civil rights claims won’t improve matters. At least two more Justices who can overcome any personal political discomfort, and acknowledge both the Second Amendment and their role in enforcing fundamental rights, are required to guarantee the bare minimum of a recognizable right to arms. Unfortunately, given the major party nominees this election, the prospect of seeing even one such Justice confirmed in the next four years could not be closer to zero.

Meanwhile Ginsey keeps flapping her yap hole about "state of the nation." One can only hope, her outspokeness is starting to show the signs of her final time with us...not that I wish departure from life upon anyone, but I am willing to pray to god that it's part of his plan (perhaps in acceleration) due to the mitigating circumstances in the war of evil intent vs. individual liberty. Certainly, I will send a letter noting my approval of her future funeral.

swinokur · Feb 24, 2017

jcutonilli · Feb 24, 2017

I just saw this. A proposed executive order designating certain rifles, applicable to the Kolbe case, for militia purposes

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ve-order-designating-rifles-militia-purposes/

fightinbluhen51 · Feb 24, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I just saw this. A proposed executive order designating certain rifles, applicable to the Kolbe case, for militia purposes

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ve-order-designating-rifles-militia-purposes/

If true, that's a nice first step to hit back. This is going on offense.

krucam · Feb 24, 2017

It will also disappear the 1st week a D sits in the White House...

fightinbluhen51 · Feb 24, 2017

krucam said:
It will also disappear the 1st week a D sits in the White House...

And so be it...

Remember, these branches of government are separate but equal. Let POTUS & the executive branch work to undermine the lawless courts at least with what lawful tool he does have. Meanwhile, work with states for Art. 5 on this, or congress on gun right normalization act.

Why do we have to stay status quo with only one option?

When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Drmsparks · Feb 24, 2017

krucam said:
It will also disappear the 1st week a D sits in the White House...

Maybe- it does buy us time to get a second judge on the SC. A SC decision actually based on the constitution would eliminate the need for the EO by clearly stating strict scrutiny and the fact you cannot ban a whole class of firearms (semi auto rifles)

The EO states clearly that firearms based on us issue military arms are the preferred choice for militia use and therefore should be available to the public with minimum restriction.

as to the disappearance....

Trump is the first president in my memory to spend a lot of time undoing old EO's. In general it's not done.

the fact that it can be undone also provides motivation for BGO's to keep voting.

fightinbluhen51 · Feb 24, 2017

Drmsparks said:
Maybe- it does buy us time to get a second judge on the SC. A SC decision actually based on the constitution would eliminate the need for the EO by clearly stating strict scrutiny and the fact you cannot ban a whole class of firearms (semi auto rifles)

The EO states clearly that firearms based on us issue military arms are the preferred choice for militia use and therefore should be available to the public with minimum restriction.

as to the disappearance....

Trump is the first president in my memory to spend a lot of time undoing old EO's. In general it's not done.

the fact that it can be undone also provides motivation for BGO's to keep voting.

He's doing what he said he would do; Congress has yet to repeal Ocare...or pass tax cuts.

Think about that one after we gave them the house one cycle, the senate the next; massive victories in the state houses. I'm not tired of winning yet; there is more winning to occur.

I agree about the language and how it is structured with "American made arms." I dislike that. Here is my comment as to how I would approach it from TTAG link.

ME said:
I like this premise as a stop gap, but I think we all certainly should not follow ourselves that this is a temporary measure.

(f) “Militia Rifles” shall mean the firearms designated in Section 4 that are made in America and suitable for use in self-defense, community defense, defense of States and defense of the Nation.

“made in America” needs to be stricken. Not all arms owned by unorganized militia members are of American manufacture. Certainly there are high quality arms that are of Russian, Bulgarian, German and Israeli manufacture.

With respect to types of serviceable militia arms, it would certainly be more clear to reference that

“Individual and crew served small arms (rifles & shotguns), and side arms (pistols and revolvers) recognized by any DoD or NATO manual shall be considered the general basis for all civilian owned arms suitable for militia duty (as recognized by US. v. Miller). Explicitly, any list maintained by these organizations is neither all encompassing nor shall it be construed to limit the country origin for any manufacture of suitable arms.”

Essentially, stating that all arms that fall into the small arms category shall be proficient for modern militia service. That holds with Miller & Heller/McDonald.

I should explicitly state that there should be some language in there to reference their full auto counterparts AND the privately owned, non-NFA "semi auto" step-children of parent infantry, automatic firearms.

Jaybeez · Feb 24, 2017

fightinbluhen51 said:
He's doing what he said he would do; Congress has yet to repeal Ocare...or pass tax cuts.

Think about that one after we gave them the house one cycle, the senate the next; massive victories in the state houses. I'm not tired of winning yet; there is more winning to occur.

I agree about the language and how it is structured with "American made arms." I dislike that. Here is my comment as to how I would approach it from TTAG link.

I should explicitly state that there should be some language in there to reference their full auto counterparts AND the privately owned, non-NFA "semi auto" step-children of parent infantry, automatic firearms.

"American made arms"

Anything counts as US made with enough 922r parts.

Jaybeez · Feb 24, 2017

krucam said:
It will also disappear the 1st week a D sits in the White House...

Ideally, Chief Justice Cruz, and justices alito, roberts, gorsuch, la pierre, nugent, and hickock 45 will have settled the issue before another D sits in the white house.

Mr H · Feb 24, 2017

being covered right now on FNC

NM...

Guy Benson gave great arguments, the lib on the panel basically called him silly, and Martha stayed out of it.

Haides · Feb 24, 2017

Jaybeez said:
Ideally, Chief Justice Cruz, and justices alito, roberts, gorsuch, la pierre, nugent, and hickock 45 will have settled the issue before another D sits in the white house.

Oh man, what a dream team. Wouldn't that be something? :rofl:

Jim12 · Feb 25, 2017

I think all these EO's are a mistake first made by -0- and now by Trump. They don't last.

Moreover, they give the false sense of security that something has been done, and eliminates the pressure and exigency for legislation, which is the longlasting solution. And it lets the do-nothing Republican Congress off the hook.

We need laws, not EO's.

EIEIO is for Old McDonald.

Kolbe en banc decision

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Active Member

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Old School Rifleman

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics