[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: The Lone Man Resisting Judicial Tyranny Source: afa URL Source: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/news/2 ... an-resisting-judicial-tyranny/ Published: May 9, 2016 Author: Bryan Fischer Post Date: 2016-07-04 13:06:24 by Dead Culture Watch Keywords: Zombies Views: 5833 Comments: 26 By: Bryan FischerPosted: Monday, May 9, 2016 1:08 PM Select Language​▼ Bryan FischerHost of "Focal Point" Connect Follow More Articles If Judge Moore goes down, the last vestige of true freedom will go down with him. - Bryan Fischer The Constitution gives absolutely no authority, none, to the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states. You can read the Constitution left to right, right to left, backwards, upside down while hanging from the ceiling, and in Sanskrit and you will not find the word “marriage” in there anywhere. That means under the Founders’ Constitution - not the Constitution as mangled and shredded by the judiciary - marriage is an issue reserved exclusively for the states. When the Obergefell case was decided by the Supreme Court, its ruling legally applied only to the plaintiffs before it, as is true in any case before any court. The concept of “judicial review” - in which the Court, and not Congress, gets to decide what the law is - is not found in the Constitution anywhere. It was invented out of the ether by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 as a way for the Court to grant dictatorial authority to itself over the freedom-loving Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was well aware of the lethal results to our republican form of government if the concept of judicial review were ever accepted. The Court would become a super-legislature where laws would be made rather than applied. His warnings were prescient but went unheeded. Lincoln echoed Jefferson when he declared that if we ever accept the conceit that the Supreme Court has the final word on any subject, the people will have “ceased to be their own rulers.” His warning likewise went unheeded. Until, that is, Judge Roy Moore, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama came along. Judge Moore seems to be the only jurist in America who understands the constitutional limits to the Supreme Court’s authority. The Supreme Court’s authority is only supreme in cases in which it has jurisdiction according to Article III, and only with respect to the plaintiffs before it. Judge Moore quite correctly observed that Alabama was not a litigant before the Court in the same sex marriage controversy that led to the Obergefell opinion. So while the 16 couples who were before the Court in Obergefell can get their “marriage” licenses, its ruling has no binding authority on the state of Alabama. Abraham Lincoln said exactly the same thing with regard to the obscene Dred Scott opinion. He accepted the Court’s ruling with regard to Scott and his owner, but flatly denied that the Court’s ruling had any binding or precedential effect anywhere else in the Union. So Judge Moore fulfilled his sacred oath of office to uphold the federal Constitution (which leaves marriage to the states) and the Alabama state constitution (which defines marriage as a man-woman institution) by declaring that same-sex-marriage is still illegal in the state of Alabama. In other words, the only judge in the entire marriage debacle who is actually following the Constitution is Judge Roy Moore. And he’s about to be disrobed and defrocked for having the temerity to actually do what he was sworn into office to do: “The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission on Friday filed ethics charges against Moore, saying that the state chief justice abused the power of his office and displayed disrespect for the judiciary. Moore, 69, has been automatically suspended from the bench until there is a resolution.” Moore is being represented by Mat Staver, the attorney who so capably and resolutely stood with Kim Davis, the county clerk who was imprisoned for her faith by a federal judge in Kentucky. Constitutional liberty now has just one lone judicial defender in America. If Judge Moore goes down, the last vestige of true freedom will go down with him. We truly will no longer be citizens but serfs, abjectly submissive to our judicial overlords. Judge Roy Moore has picked up the banner of constitutional liberty and is standing resolutely against our black-robed tyrants. Who will rally behind him? Poster Comment: Figured this place needed another zombie thread. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21. #9. To: Dead Culture Watch, tpaine (#0) [Bryan Fischer - Article] The Constitution gives absolutely no authority, none, to the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states. [...] When the Obergefell case was decided by the Supreme Court, its ruling legally applied only to the plaintiffs before it, as is true in any case before any court. [...] The Supreme Court’s authority is only supreme in cases in which it has jurisdiction according to Article III, and only with respect to the plaintiffs before it. Judge Moore quite correctly observed that Alabama was not a litigant before the Court in the same sex marriage controversy that led to the Obergefell opinion. So while the 16 couples who were before the Court in Obergefell can get their “marriage” licenses, its ruling has no binding authority on the state of Alabama. Abraham Lincoln said exactly the same thing with regard to the obscene Dred Scott opinion. He accepted the Court’s ruling with regard to Scott and his owner, but flatly denied that the Court’s ruling had any binding or precedential effect anywhere else in the Union. If you desire to know what the law is, I recommend reading lawbooks, not the online blatherings of Bryan Fisher, whoever he is. If you desire to know what Abraham Lincoln said, I recommend the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln or any other good collection of the speeches and writings of Lincoln. If you desire to know what was held, what was opinion and dicta, and how the Court decided the case of Scott v. Sandford, I recommend reading the opinions in the case. Unlike the Bill of Rights, the sloppily drafted 14th Amendment speaks in undefined generalities and give an appearance similar to an Omnibus Bill rather than a constitutional amendment. It should not have been adopted in such form, it's adoption was very irregular to say the least, it has unintended consequences, and it should be repealed and redone if desired. That said, it is part of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States? It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. Due process of law differs from state to state and is whatever process the law says is due. The equal protection of the laws arguably can be stretched to cover Obergefell. The Court so stretched it. If Judge Moore actually thinks the opinion Obergefell only applies to Obergefell, and has no binding authority in Alabama, he should be removed from the bench and disbarred. And no, Lincoln did not say the same thing with regard to the Dred Scott case. While Fischer fails to quote or identify what Lincoln said, or when, Lincoln said: Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions—first, that a negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court—dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision; and, in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney. He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called "precedents'' and "authorities.'' We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it. Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession. If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent. But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country—But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. [...] There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. [...] But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once—a thousand times agreed. [...] This very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Union-saving Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife and two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the court to have held that they were citizens so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then, also, that they were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls, ever mixing their blood with that of white people, would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves—the very state of case that produces nine tenths of all the mulattoes---all the mixing of blood in the nation. Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his family, or any more than a per centage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise this particular power which they hold over their female slaves. I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform—opposition to the spread of slavery—is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but "when there is a will there is a way;'' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. Speech at Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858 A little now on the other point—the Dred Scott Decision. Another one of the issues he says that is to be made with me, is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott Decision, and my opposition to it. I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott Decision, but I should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used "resistance to the Decision?'' I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that, but all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of that Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said last night, that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so! We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First—they decide upon the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say to everybody else, that persons standing just as Dred Scott stands is as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person it will be so decided again, unless the court decides in another way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. That is one thing we mean to try to do. Speech at Springfield, Illinois, July 17, 1858 Now, as to the Dred Scott decision; for upon that he makes his last point at me. He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision. This is one-half the onslaught, and one-third of the entire plan of the campaign. I am opposed to that decision in a certain sense, but not in the sense which he puts on it. I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the decision. I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think, that in respect for judicial authority, my humble history would not suffer in a comparison with that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen conform his vote to that decision; the Member of Congress, his; the President, his use of the veto power. He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all the departments of the government. I would not. By resisting it as a political rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder, excite no mobs. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-07   20:22:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: nolu chan (#9) Abraham Lincoln said ----- with regard to the --- Dred Scott opinion. (That) He accepted the Court’s ruling with regard to Scott and his owner, but flatly denied that the Court’s ruling had any binding or precedential effect anywhere else in the Union. Nothing in your lengthy spam of the subject refuted the opinion above. And, your comment that: --- Due process of law differs from state to state and is whatever process the law says is due. Is one of the most insane statist opinions I've ever seen. You actually contend that a State in this union can simply pass 'Laws' decreeing what due process it's citizen's are subject to, in disregard of their inalienable/unalienable rights as outlined in our Constitution? Unbelievable. I doubt they even teach crap like that in the most leftist of law schools. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-08   3:23:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine (#10) Is one of the most insane statist opinions I've ever seen. You actually contend that a State in this union can simply pass 'Laws' decreeing what due process it's citizen's are subject to, in disregard of their inalienable/unalienable rights as outlined in our Constitution? You are sick. Get help. Each state has its own constitution and criminal laws. Contrary to your desire for an all powerful Federal government, Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. There is plenty of room for difference without bothering the Federal Constitution. Not only can states enact laws establishing due process within a state, each and every state has done so. In some states a grand jury is used where in other states it is not. Due process in each state is different. In Louisiana it is very, very different. It uses an entirely different system of jurisprudence than the other 49 states. And remember that Lincoln said: I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the decision. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-08   14:23:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: nolu chan (#11) Due process of law differs from state to state and is whatever process the law says is due. Each state has its own constitution and criminal laws. Contrary to your desire for an all powerful Federal government, Each state has its own constitution and criminal laws, but the supreme law of the land is our Constitution. --And the Constitution protects our individual rights from infringements by local, State, and federal governments. Contrary to your desire for an all powerful Federal government. I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. You don't. You are sick. Get help. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-08   16:23:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: tpaine (#12) I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. Most people would be ecstatic if the Federal government honored our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-08   16:36:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: nolu chan (#13) I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. Yep, but those retained powers could not violate our individual rights, as per the Constitution. Most people would be ecstatic if the Federal government honored our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. And just as many people would like local and state governments to do the same. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. You say "me too." --- Act like it.. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-08   17:01:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: tpaine (#14) I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. I want the Federal government to honor our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. You want the Federal government sticking its nose into all sorts of places where it has no business going. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. And whatever infects California and causes insanity is best kept confined to California. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-10   19:58:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: nolu chan (#15) Most people would be ecstatic if the Federal government honored our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. And just as many people would like local and state governments to do the same. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. You say "me too." --- Act like it.. Me too. But you don't act like it. I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. --- I want the Federal government to honor our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. On those points we agree, -- until you lie and claim:--- You want the Federal government sticking its nose into all sorts of places where it has no business going. --- You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. Not true, and I have no idea where you came up with that lie. And whatever infects California and causes insanity is best kept confined to California. We both know a progressive type of statism is infecting California. -- I'm fighting this statism, and for some weird reason you're fighting me. Could it be you're infected too? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-10   20:34:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: tpaine (#16) [tpaine #16] I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. I want the Federal government to honor our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. You want the Federal government sticking its nose into all sorts of places where it has no business going. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. And whatever infects California and causes insanity is best kept confined to California. [tpaine #16] We both know a progressive type of statism is infecting California. -- I'm fighting this statism, and for some weird reason you're fighting me. Progress report on tpaine's fight against California infection. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article88521977.html What California’s new gun laws mean for hunters, target shooters By Jeremy B. White Sacramento Bee July 8, 2016 3:30 PM Being a California gun owner just got more complicated. Bolstering a body of firearms laws already considered among the nation’s strongest, Gov. Jerry Brown last week signed a half-dozen bills to regulate ammunition sales, ban large-capacity clips and quick-reloading devices and clamp down on lending weapons, among other things. Some hunters and shooters have reacted with a mix of dismay and confusion, wondering what they will have to do to remain law-abiding citizens and asking if they will need to change their habits. “I haven’t broken any laws. I’m a Boy Scout. For 20 years I’ve made every effort to stay completely legal because gun rights are so important to me,” said John Spier, a competitive shooter who lives in Visalia. “These laws are going to affect me and those like me a lot more than they’re going to affect criminals.” Here are answers to some of the more common questions and concerns that arose in interviews with gun owners. Q: Do I have to get a permit to buy ammunition? A: No. But under Senate Bill 1235 as of July 2019 you will need to pass a background check, which involves the vendor running your information through a California Department of Justice system to see if you are prohibited from owning guns (for example, because of a violent felony). If not, you should be clear to buy. Q: What if I go hunting across state lines and buy ammo there? A: Let’s say you travel to Oregon for some duck hunting and buy boxes of ammunition while outside of California. You can bring at most 50 rounds back in to the state. Any more than that and you could be hit with a misdemeanor. Q: Who’s going to enforce that? A: The same law enforcement agencies like sheriffs, police officers and Department of Justice agents who already enforce gun laws. For example, the department already works to intercept people who cannot own guns in California but try to get them across the border from other states. Hunters might already be familiar with Department of Agriculture border checkpoints, which exist to ensure people aren’t bringing banned fruit and vegetables, illegally poached game or out-of-state afflictions like chronic wasting disease into California. There is no plan to set up new checkpoints to check whether people are bringing ammunition, but people could face questions about ammo at the agricultural stops. If you are purchasing ammunition in California, going hunting in another state and then returning with more than 50 rounds, keep a record of the sale to establish it’s on the level. Q: Can I give or sell my friends and family excess ammunition? A: You can sell up to 50 rounds a month directly to immediate relatives and give as much as you want to friends or family. You cannot sell to a friend unless the transaction goes through a licensed ammunition dealer or you both are licensed hunters out on a hunt and you don’t sell more than 50 rounds a month. Q: I own a gun with a detachable magazine. Am I breaking the law? A: Two bills, Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135, sought to close what law enforcement groups and gun control advocates call the “bullet-button” loophole. California law already prohibited assault weapons, defined as those with magazines that can be detached without disassembling the gun or using a tool. But some gun owners reacted to that by employing so-called “bullet-button” devices that can quickly release spent magazines without running afoul of the ban, seeing as they allow users to eject magazines using tools like another magazine. The new laws would, as of the start of 2017, ban the sale of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles or semi-automatic pistols that do not have a fixed magazine and also have one from a list of specific design features. Q: So if I have an old gun that fits that definition, do I have to get rid of it? A: Not if you bought it between 2001 and 2016. But you will need to register it with the California Department of Justice by the start of 2018. You can find a form online at https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/forms, and it should cost at most $20. Both under the old and the new definition, to be banned for sale guns also need to have a characteristic from a list that includes things like a protruding pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a grenade launcher. In other words, what are often referred to as “military-style” features. So guns like hunting rifles with detachable magazines won’t necessarily be banned, as long as they don’t have one of those “military-style” design features the state uses to define assault weapons. Q: My dad owns a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that fits the new definition of an assault weapon. Will I be able to inherit it when he dies or buy it from him? A: No. Unless he modifies the gun so it’s not longer classified as an assault weapon, that now counts as an illegal sale or transfer. Q: My hunting company regularly lends customers guns. Is that now illegal? A: No. Assembly Bill 1511 cracks down on loaning guns, with advocates arguing the practice serves to skirt background check requirements. But an existing exemption for hunters remains in place, so hunting guides can still lend their customers firearms as part of their businesses if those customers have hunting licenses and only use the guns during the established hunting season. Family members can lend one another guns provided it doesn’t happen that often: less than six times a year for handguns and, for other guns, if it’s “occasional and without regularity.” Outside of that, you won’t be able to loan guns to others starting in January 2017. Q: Some of the guns I use take magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. What do I do with them? A: Senate Bill 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds as of July 2017. That expands on an existing state law barring the sale and import of such magazines. So you might need to get rid of old high-volume magazines by destroying them, selling them to licensed gun dealers or handing them in to law enforcement. But, as with the bullet-button bills, there are some exceptions written in. If you own a gun that only takes such large-capacity magazines, and bought it before the start of 2000, you can keep the magazines that go with it provided you only use them for that gun. Q: I’m a competitive shooter and use guns with large-capacity magazines. Can I continue practicing my sport in California? A: Some shooting competitions use guns that accept magazines larger than those California now prohibits. Participants have been able to get around that until now provided their magazines are old enough that they didn’t buy them before California outlawed sales of such magazines. But now, if your gun can take a lower-capacity magazine, you have to use it while in California. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-11   13:29:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: nolu chan, posts new California infringements that canary creeps have helped pass. (#17) [Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register] Post Comment Please cut and paste the portion of the text to which you are replying, if any, into the "Quote" box using your computer's editing features. On 2016-07-11 13:29:20, nolu chan wrote: To: tpaine [tpaine #16] I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. I want the Federal government to honor our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. You want the Federal government sticking its nose into all sorts of places where it has no business going. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. And whatever infects California and causes insanity is best kept confined to California. [tpaine #16] We both know a progressive type of statism is infecting California. -- I'm fighting this statism, and for some weird reason you're fighting me. Progress report on tpaine's fight against California infection. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article88521977.html What California’s new gun laws mean for hunters, target shooters By Jeremy B. White Sacramento Bee July 8, 2016 3:30 PM Being a California gun owner just got more complicated. Bolstering a body of firearms laws already considered among the nation’s strongest, Gov. Jerry Brown last week signed a half-dozen bills to regulate ammunition sales, ban large-capacity clips and quick-reloading devices and clamp down on lending weapons, among other things. Some hunters and shooters have reacted with a mix of dismay and confusion, wondering what they will have to do to remain law-abiding citizens and asking if they will need to change their habits. “I haven’t broken any laws. I’m a Boy Scout. For 20 years I’ve made every effort to stay completely legal because gun rights are so important to me,” said John Spier, a competitive shooter who lives in Visalia. “These laws are going to affect me and those like me a lot more than they’re going to affect criminals.” Here are answers to some of the more common questions and concerns that arose in interviews with gun owners. Q: Do I have to get a permit to buy ammunition? A: No. But under Senate Bill 1235 as of July 2019 you will need to pass a background check, which involves the vendor running your information through a California Department of Justice system to see if you are prohibited from owning guns (for example, because of a violent felony). If not, you should be clear to buy. Q: What if I go hunting across state lines and buy ammo there? A: Let’s say you travel to Oregon for some duck hunting and buy boxes of ammunition while outside of California. You can bring at most 50 rounds back in to the state. Any more than that and you could be hit with a misdemeanor. Q: Who’s going to enforce that? A: The same law enforcement agencies like sheriffs, police officers and Department of Justice agents who already enforce gun laws. For example, the department already works to intercept people who cannot own guns in California but try to get them across the border from other states. Hunters might already be familiar with Department of Agriculture border checkpoints, which exist to ensure people aren’t bringing banned fruit and vegetables, illegally poached game or out-of-state afflictions like chronic wasting disease into California. There is no plan to set up new checkpoints to check whether people are bringing ammunition, but people could face questions about ammo at the agricultural stops. If you are purchasing ammunition in California, going hunting in another state and then returning with more than 50 rounds, keep a record of the sale to establish it’s on the level. Q: Can I give or sell my friends and family excess ammunition? A: You can sell up to 50 rounds a month directly to immediate relatives and give as much as you want to friends or family. You cannot sell to a friend unless the transaction goes through a licensed ammunition dealer or you both are licensed hunters out on a hunt and you don’t sell more than 50 rounds a month. Q: I own a gun with a detachable magazine. Am I breaking the law? A: Two bills, Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135, sought to close what law enforcement groups and gun control advocates call the “bullet-button” loophole. California law already prohibited assault weapons, defined as those with magazines that can be detached without disassembling the gun or using a tool. But some gun owners reacted to that by employing so-called “bullet-button” devices that can quickly release spent magazines without running afoul of the ban, seeing as they allow users to eject magazines using tools like another magazine. The new laws would, as of the start of 2017, ban the sale of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles or semi-automatic pistols that do not have a fixed magazine and also have one from a list of specific design features. Q: So if I have an old gun that fits that definition, do I have to get rid of it? A: Not if you bought it between 2001 and 2016. But you will need to register it with the California Department of Justice by the start of 2018. You can find a form online at https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/forms, and it should cost at most $20. Both under the old and the new definition, to be banned for sale guns also need to have a characteristic from a list that includes things like a protruding pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a grenade launcher. In other words, what are often referred to as “military-style” features. So guns like hunting rifles with detachable magazines won’t necessarily be banned, as long as they don’t have one of those “military-style” design features the state uses to define assault weapons. Q: My dad owns a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that fits the new definition of an assault weapon. Will I be able to inherit it when he dies or buy it from him? A: No. Unless he modifies the gun so it’s not longer classified as an assault weapon, that now counts as an illegal sale or transfer. Q: My hunting company regularly lends customers guns. Is that now illegal? A: No. Assembly Bill 1511 cracks down on loaning guns, with advocates arguing the practice serves to skirt background check requirements. But an existing exemption for hunters remains in place, so hunting guides can still lend their customers firearms as part of their businesses if those customers have hunting licenses and only use the guns during the established hunting season. Family members can lend one another guns provided it doesn’t happen that often: less than six times a year for handguns and, for other guns, if it’s “occasional and without regularity.” Outside of that, you won’t be able to loan guns to others starting in January 2017. Q: Some of the guns I use take magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. What do I do with them? A: Senate Bill 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds as of July 2017. That expands on an existing state law barring the sale and import of such magazines. So you might need to get rid of old high-volume magazines by destroying them, selling them to licensed gun dealers or handing them in to law enforcement. But, as with the bullet-button bills, there are some exceptions written in. If you own a gun that only takes such large-capacity magazines, and bought it before the start of 2000, you can keep the magazines that go with it provided you only use them for that gun. Q: I’m a competitive shooter and use guns with large-capacity magazines. Can I continue practicing my sport in California? A: Some shooting competitions use guns that accept magazines larger than those California now prohibits. Participants have been able to get around that until now provided their magazines are old enough that they didn’t buy them before California outlawed sales of such magazines. But now, if your gun can take a lower-capacity magazine, you have to use it while in California. Enter Screen Names of recipients separated by commas or semicolons. To: nolu chan Make blank lines new paragraphs Auto Hyperlink Web Addresses The text you wish to Quote: Your Comments/Response: Hint: Paragraphs beginning with ">>" (2 greater-than symbols) will be auto-indented! Preview Preview w/Auto Link Post Without Preview Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com Nolu posts new California infringements that canary creeps have helped pass. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-11   14:40:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: tpaine (#18) [tpaine] I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. I want the Federal government to honor our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. You want the Federal government sticking its nose into all sorts of places where it has no business going. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. And whatever infects California and causes insanity is best kept confined to California. [tpaine] We both know a progressive type of statism is infecting California. -- I'm fighting this statism, and for some weird reason you're fighting me. Progress report on tpaine's fight against California infection. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article88521977.html What California’s new gun laws mean for hunters, target shooters By Jeremy B. White Sacramento Bee July 8, 2016 3:30 PM Being a California gun owner just got more complicated. Bolstering a body of firearms laws already considered among the nation’s strongest, Gov. Jerry Brown last week signed a half-dozen bills to regulate ammunition sales, ban large-capacity clips and quick-reloading devices and clamp down on lending weapons, among other things. Some hunters and shooters have reacted with a mix of dismay and confusion, wondering what they will have to do to remain law-abiding citizens and asking if they will need to change their habits. “I haven’t broken any laws. I’m a Boy Scout. For 20 years I’ve made every effort to stay completely legal because gun rights are so important to me,” said John Spier, a competitive shooter who lives in Visalia. “These laws are going to affect me and those like me a lot more than they’re going to affect criminals.” Here are answers to some of the more common questions and concerns that arose in interviews with gun owners. Q: Do I have to get a permit to buy ammunition? A: No. But under Senate Bill 1235 as of July 2019 you will need to pass a background check, which involves the vendor running your information through a California Department of Justice system to see if you are prohibited from owning guns (for example, because of a violent felony). If not, you should be clear to buy. Q: What if I go hunting across state lines and buy ammo there? A: Let’s say you travel to Oregon for some duck hunting and buy boxes of ammunition while outside of California. You can bring at most 50 rounds back in to the state. Any more than that and you could be hit with a misdemeanor. Q: Who’s going to enforce that? A: The same law enforcement agencies like sheriffs, police officers and Department of Justice agents who already enforce gun laws. For example, the department already works to intercept people who cannot own guns in California but try to get them across the border from other states. Hunters might already be familiar with Department of Agriculture border checkpoints, which exist to ensure people aren’t bringing banned fruit and vegetables, illegally poached game or out-of-state afflictions like chronic wasting disease into California. There is no plan to set up new checkpoints to check whether people are bringing ammunition, but people could face questions about ammo at the agricultural stops. If you are purchasing ammunition in California, going hunting in another state and then returning with more than 50 rounds, keep a record of the sale to establish it’s on the level. Q: Can I give or sell my friends and family excess ammunition? A: You can sell up to 50 rounds a month directly to immediate relatives and give as much as you want to friends or family. You cannot sell to a friend unless the transaction goes through a licensed ammunition dealer or you both are licensed hunters out on a hunt and you don’t sell more than 50 rounds a month. Q: I own a gun with a detachable magazine. Am I breaking the law? A: Two bills, Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135, sought to close what law enforcement groups and gun control advocates call the “bullet-button” loophole. California law already prohibited assault weapons, defined as those with magazines that can be detached without disassembling the gun or using a tool. But some gun owners reacted to that by employing so-called “bullet-button” devices that can quickly release spent magazines without running afoul of the ban, seeing as they allow users to eject magazines using tools like another magazine. The new laws would, as of the start of 2017, ban the sale of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles or semi-automatic pistols that do not have a fixed magazine and also have one from a list of specific design features. Q: So if I have an old gun that fits that definition, do I have to get rid of it? A: Not if you bought it between 2001 and 2016. But you will need to register it with the California Department of Justice by the start of 2018. You can find a form online at https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/forms, and it should cost at most $20. Both under the old and the new definition, to be banned for sale guns also need to have a characteristic from a list that includes things like a protruding pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a grenade launcher. In other words, what are often referred to as “military-style” features. So guns like hunting rifles with detachable magazines won’t necessarily be banned, as long as they don’t have one of those “military-style” design features the state uses to define assault weapons. Q: My dad owns a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that fits the new definition of an assault weapon. Will I be able to inherit it when he dies or buy it from him? A: No. Unless he modifies the gun so it’s not longer classified as an assault weapon, that now counts as an illegal sale or transfer. Q: My hunting company regularly lends customers guns. Is that now illegal? A: No. Assembly Bill 1511 cracks down on loaning guns, with advocates arguing the practice serves to skirt background check requirements. But an existing exemption for hunters remains in place, so hunting guides can still lend their customers firearms as part of their businesses if those customers have hunting licenses and only use the guns during the established hunting season. Family members can lend one another guns provided it doesn’t happen that often: less than six times a year for handguns and, for other guns, if it’s “occasional and without regularity.” Outside of that, you won’t be able to loan guns to others starting in January 2017. Q: Some of the guns I use take magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. What do I do with them? A: Senate Bill 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds as of July 2017. That expands on an existing state law barring the sale and import of such magazines. So you might need to get rid of old high-volume magazines by destroying them, selling them to licensed gun dealers or handing them in to law enforcement. But, as with the bullet-button bills, there are some exceptions written in. If you own a gun that only takes such large-capacity magazines, and bought it before the start of 2000, you can keep the magazines that go with it provided you only use them for that gun. Q: I’m a competitive shooter and use guns with large-capacity magazines. Can I continue practicing my sport in California? A: Some shooting competitions use guns that accept magazines larger than those California now prohibits. Participants have been able to get around that until now provided their magazines are old enough that they didn’t buy them before California outlawed sales of such magazines. But now, if your gun can take a lower-capacity magazine, you have to use it while in California. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-12   15:33:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: nolu chan (#19) I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. --- I want the Federal government to honor our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. Me too, -- but I also want local and State governments to do the same. You want the Federal government sticking its nose into all sorts of places where it has no business going. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. It's not true that I want the feds to do that, and you know it. -- Thus your silly obsession to keep posting opinions that ONLY YOU imagine support your mania, is futile. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-12   15:47:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: tpaine (#20) [tpaine] I want ALL levels of gov't to honor our Constitution. Me too. And I want the Federal government to honor the fact that by the Constitution, the people of the existing States established a Federal government of limited and delegated powers. Whatever powers they did not delegate to the Federal government were retained by the States or the People. I want the Federal government to honor our Constitution and stayed within its limited powers. You want the Federal government sticking its nose into all sorts of places where it has no business going. You can take your all powerful usurping Federal government and keep it. And whatever infects California and causes insanity is best kept confined to California. [tpaine] We both know a progressive type of statism is infecting California. -- I'm fighting this statism, and for some weird reason you're fighting me. Progress report on tpaine's fight against California infection. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article88521977.html What California’s new gun laws mean for hunters, target shooters By Jeremy B. White Sacramento Bee July 8, 2016 3:30 PM Being a California gun owner just got more complicated. Bolstering a body of firearms laws already considered among the nation’s strongest, Gov. Jerry Brown last week signed a half-dozen bills to regulate ammunition sales, ban large-capacity clips and quick-reloading devices and clamp down on lending weapons, among other things. Some hunters and shooters have reacted with a mix of dismay and confusion, wondering what they will have to do to remain law-abiding citizens and asking if they will need to change their habits. “I haven’t broken any laws. I’m a Boy Scout. For 20 years I’ve made every effort to stay completely legal because gun rights are so important to me,” said John Spier, a competitive shooter who lives in Visalia. “These laws are going to affect me and those like me a lot more than they’re going to affect criminals.” Here are answers to some of the more common questions and concerns that arose in interviews with gun owners. Q: Do I have to get a permit to buy ammunition? A: No. But under Senate Bill 1235 as of July 2019 you will need to pass a background check, which involves the vendor running your information through a California Department of Justice system to see if you are prohibited from owning guns (for example, because of a violent felony). If not, you should be clear to buy. Q: What if I go hunting across state lines and buy ammo there? A: Let’s say you travel to Oregon for some duck hunting and buy boxes of ammunition while outside of California. You can bring at most 50 rounds back in to the state. Any more than that and you could be hit with a misdemeanor. Q: Who’s going to enforce that? A: The same law enforcement agencies like sheriffs, police officers and Department of Justice agents who already enforce gun laws. For example, the department already works to intercept people who cannot own guns in California but try to get them across the border from other states. Hunters might already be familiar with Department of Agriculture border checkpoints, which exist to ensure people aren’t bringing banned fruit and vegetables, illegally poached game or out-of-state afflictions like chronic wasting disease into California. There is no plan to set up new checkpoints to check whether people are bringing ammunition, but people could face questions about ammo at the agricultural stops. If you are purchasing ammunition in California, going hunting in another state and then returning with more than 50 rounds, keep a record of the sale to establish it’s on the level. Q: Can I give or sell my friends and family excess ammunition? A: You can sell up to 50 rounds a month directly to immediate relatives and give as much as you want to friends or family. You cannot sell to a friend unless the transaction goes through a licensed ammunition dealer or you both are licensed hunters out on a hunt and you don’t sell more than 50 rounds a month. Q: I own a gun with a detachable magazine. Am I breaking the law? A: Two bills, Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135, sought to close what law enforcement groups and gun control advocates call the “bullet-button” loophole. California law already prohibited assault weapons, defined as those with magazines that can be detached without disassembling the gun or using a tool. But some gun owners reacted to that by employing so-called “bullet-button” devices that can quickly release spent magazines without running afoul of the ban, seeing as they allow users to eject magazines using tools like another magazine. The new laws would, as of the start of 2017, ban the sale of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles or semi-automatic pistols that do not have a fixed magazine and also have one from a list of specific design features. Q: So if I have an old gun that fits that definition, do I have to get rid of it? A: Not if you bought it between 2001 and 2016. But you will need to register it with the California Department of Justice by the start of 2018. You can find a form online at https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/forms, and it should cost at most $20. Both under the old and the new definition, to be banned for sale guns also need to have a characteristic from a list that includes things like a protruding pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a grenade launcher. In other words, what are often referred to as “military-style” features. So guns like hunting rifles with detachable magazines won’t necessarily be banned, as long as they don’t have one of those “military-style” design features the state uses to define assault weapons. Q: My dad owns a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that fits the new definition of an assault weapon. Will I be able to inherit it when he dies or buy it from him? A: No. Unless he modifies the gun so it’s not longer classified as an assault weapon, that now counts as an illegal sale or transfer. Q: My hunting company regularly lends customers guns. Is that now illegal? A: No. Assembly Bill 1511 cracks down on loaning guns, with advocates arguing the practice serves to skirt background check requirements. But an existing exemption for hunters remains in place, so hunting guides can still lend their customers firearms as part of their businesses if those customers have hunting licenses and only use the guns during the established hunting season. Family members can lend one another guns provided it doesn’t happen that often: less than six times a year for handguns and, for other guns, if it’s “occasional and without regularity.” Outside of that, you won’t be able to loan guns to others starting in January 2017. Q: Some of the guns I use take magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. What do I do with them? A: Senate Bill 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds as of July 2017. That expands on an existing state law barring the sale and import of such magazines. So you might need to get rid of old high-volume magazines by destroying them, selling them to licensed gun dealers or handing them in to law enforcement. But, as with the bullet-button bills, there are some exceptions written in. If you own a gun that only takes such large-capacity magazines, and bought it before the start of 2000, you can keep the magazines that go with it provided you only use them for that gun. Q: I’m a competitive shooter and use guns with large-capacity magazines. Can I continue practicing my sport in California? A: Some shooting competitions use guns that accept magazines larger than those California now prohibits. Participants have been able to get around that until now provided their magazines are old enough that they didn’t buy them before California outlawed sales of such magazines. But now, if your gun can take a lower-capacity magazine, you have to use it while in California. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-13   12:49:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 21. #22. To: nolu chan (#21) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-14 18:10:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 21. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com