LF: Judge Neil Gorsuch: Some Cause for Concern (Stop & Frisk, Disarm)

In recent days, news outlets have been reporting that 10th Circuit judge Neil Gorsuch has now risen to the top of President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. He apparently replaces Judge William Pryor, who was widely reported as previously leading the pack of potential nominees. Judge Pryor faced significant backlash from many on the right, including Evangelical Christians, criticizing Pryor's apparent support of the radical homosexual and transgender agenda.

The danger in being the front runner for a spot on the High Court is that you receive intense scrutiny, and, as with most candidates, Judge Gorsuch is difficult to evaluate fully.

Having spent some time digging into Judge Gorsuch's background, we have found many good indicators. First, we should say that we personally knew his mother – Anne Gorsuch Burford, a lawyer whom President Reagan appointed in 1981 as director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Anne was both principled and fearless – taking many arrows in her faithful pursuit of President Reagan's environmental agenda. Sadly, the Reagan administration failed to provide her the backing she deserved, leading to her early departure from that position. Judge Gorsuch's distinguished maternal pedigree should not be overlooked.

As to Judge Gorsuch's judicial record, he authored the excellent opinion in United States v. Ackerman, 831 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2016), which, in an alternative holding, determined that government accessing a person's emails constitutes a "search" under the revitalized property rights trespass test articulated by Justice Scalia in the case of United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012). Additionally, Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in the 10th Circuit, in what became the Hobby Lobby case in the U.S. Supreme Court, determining that the religious freedom of Christian businesses trumps the "right" of a woman to have her employer subsidize the killing of her unborn baby. Finally, Judge Gorsuch is a vocal critic of the modern "Administrative State" – advocating the elimination of the doctrine of "Chevron deferense," which has given unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats vast and unconstitutional power over just about every aspect of our lives.

On the other hand, there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch's record. Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11^th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry. To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion. He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment.

The facts of the case are these. A New Mexico policeman observed Mr. Rodriguez, a convenience store clerk, carrying a concealed handgun. Carrying a concealed loaded handgun is illegal in New Mexico without a permit but legal if one has a license to do so. The officer, upon seeing a Rodriguez's handgun, detained him, then – acting first and asking questions later – forcibly disarmed Rodriguez. After finding out that Rodriguez did not, in fact, have a license to carry and, indeed, was a convicted felon, the officer placed him under arrest.

Of course, hard cases make bad law. But the precedent from the Rodriguez opinion will affect police-citizen relations in New Mexico, and possibly elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, for many years to come. Not bothering to figure out the legality of Rodriguez's firearm before detaining and disarming him, the officer's initial actions would have been the same even if Mr. Rodriguez had been a lawful gun owner.

According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

The Circuit Court based this decision on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) – the "stop and frisk" doctrine. One of the holdings from Terry is that, if the police have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is both "armed and dangerous," they can temporarily seize his weapon to keep everyone safe. Of course, anyone with a smidgeon of common sense knows that just being an "armed" law-abiding citizen does not also make a person "dangerous" any more than a police officer with a gun should be considered dangerous.

Unfortunately, the Rodriguez opinion allows the police to conflate the two concepts and treat all armed persons as if they were automatically dangerous. According to the panel opinion joined by Judge Gorsuch, the mere presence of a loaded concealed firearm "alone is enough to justify [the officer's] action in removing the handgun from Defendant's waistband for the protection of himself and others."

To be sure, Rodriguez did not raise a Second Amendment claim before the court, and the court cited various Fourth Amendment cases to justify its bad decision. But judges cannot completely hide behind precedent. Judge Gorsuch was free to express his disagreements with those precedents, even if he felt obliged to concur in the result. But that is not what he did.

Instead, the court went so far as to quote Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Terry for the pre-Heller assertion that "'concealed weapons create an immediate and severe danger to the public.'" Is that what Judge Gorsuch thinks of the 14.5 million law-abiding Americans with concealed carry permits? That they are an immediate and severe danger to the public?

Fortunately, the Framers disagreed, emphasizing in the Second Amendment that an armed populace is not only beneficial to, but indeed "necessary to" the preservation of a "free state." Unfortunately, in almost all of the countries of the world, the government considers an armed citizen a threat. But in the United States, the police should consider an armed citizenry one of the sources of strength of the nation. It is hard to imagine a better way to discourage law-abiding people from carrying guns than to do what the 10th Circuit did, and sanction the police forcibly disarming anyone seen carrying a gun.

At the end of the day, a single opinion such as this is not be enough to derail a Supreme Court nomination, especially since Judge Gorsuch did not even write the opinion. But he certainly did join the opinion. And if he is nominated to the High Court, a pro-gun United States senator or two should most certainly inquire as to this decision and ask Judge Gorsuch to explain whether he really believes that the police should be free to treat all armed citizens as though they were dangerous criminals.

Lawrence D. Pratt is executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America. Twitter: https://twitter.com/larrypratt. William J. Olson is an attorney in private practice in Virginia with William J. Olson, P.C. and represents Gun Owners Foundation. Twitter: https://twitter.com/Olsonlaw.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/22/trump-stop-frisk-great-way-cops-seize-guns/(1 image)

Be careful what you wish for. From some things you have written here YOU could easily be tagged as someone with "violent tendencies",and have your firearms seized.

The truth is it is a non-issue. If someone commits a violent crime,lock their asses away in a prison for a substantial amount of time with forced labor and no parole. If you get a sentence,you wear it if you don't overturn it on appeal.

I think most people would be shocked at how quickly violent crimes would drop if suddenly it became know that a 15 year sentence MEANT you served a MINIMUM of 15 years before being paroled,and that ANY misconduct,especially violent acts while a prisoner would get time added to your sentence. NONE of that "time off for good behavior" nonsense. No one should be getting favors and special consideration for just doing the minimum they are supposed to be doing,and not harming others without just cause.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Quit trying to flirt,buttercop. I'm not sexually attracted to males,and your whole leather boi macho act wouldn't appeal to me if I did.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Stone,it was the law of the land from the ratification of the US Constitution to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Of course not,despite you use of the adjective "POWERFUL weapons" to try to poison reason.

It was never an issue because violent felons where to prison for substantial time,and prisoners have no 2nd Amendment Rights.

However,once they got out of prison they were deemed to have "paid their debt to society",and were no longer felons. They were citizens,just like you and I.

Of course,it goes without saying that the judicial system back then didn't play kissy-face with repeat violent offenders. Second time you pulled that crap you either got life in prison and them MEANT "life in prison",or you were hanged. That's the kind of thing that encourages most people to see the error of their ways.

In other words,it was a non-issue because after being caught they were either hanged or given serious time in prison,and your rights are suspended while you are serving time. You don't HAVE rights anymore until you have served your time and your full citizenship is restored.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Career criminals and mental defectives WERE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE FULL CITIZENS because they were considered to be defective. They didn't have the right to vote or hold public office,either. Mostly because career criminals back then were either in prison for life or long enough to meet the hangman. Similar with mental defectives. Though they were innocent of any crime,they were locked away in asylums to protect them as well as the public.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

At any rate, I have already stated my position. I don't see that you made any serious inroads against it in your retorts.

I don't believe your opinion represents more than a very tiny fraction of the public. And even the most literal of justices in the country like Clarence Thomas would be quite unlikely to adopt such a position.

The right to keep and bear arms is neither bestowed by God nor the Constitution.

The Constitution recognizes capital punishment and you are invited to identify which fictional inalienable God-given right is not taken away by capital punishment.

The second problem is that the right to keep and bear arms is protected, but you impute some grotesque definition to the right itself.

The third problem is that there are actual laws and court opinions, none of which you cite, because they document that you are just pushing false news or bullshit.

As for convicts with guns, it is legally clear under State or Federal law, that their right is rendered forfeit.

As for the recent application, Voisine, quoted below, made clear, "Congress enacted §922(g)(9) in 1996 to bar those domestic abusers convicted of garden-variety assault or battery misdemeanors—just like those convicted of felonies—from owning guns."

A felony is not required. Get a state license to buy pot and federal law renders your right to own a gun forfeit. Illegal aliens and those dishonorably discharged from the military need not apply.

See California upholding such a restriction in 1924. It is not some new phenomenon.

See Voisine v. United States, a 2016 SCOTUS case to verify that illegal carry is not some obsolete concept. Note that a felony is not required. Some misdemeanors act to destroy RKBA rights.

Just for completeness, one recent State case would be 2013 Louisiana case of Draughter.

Notably, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms descended from the English Common Law and was not passed down by a guy with a white beard descending from a mountain with a stone tablet inscribed by God Himself.

Convicts were those guys on the chain-gang cutting weeds along the side of the road, being guarded with shotguns. They were convicts serving a jail sentence. Once they had served their time and were released, they were known as ex-cons. The term felon was virtually unheard of.

On May 3rd of last year, actor Charlton Heston was elected to the board of directors of the National Rifle Association (NRA) during its national convention in Seattle. Two days later, the 76-member board voted to make Heston NRA first vice president over incumbent Neal Knox, a former NRA chief lobbyist who heads the Maryland-based Firearms Coalition. The Associated Press reported at the time, "Heston’s election ran against a long tradition of two, one-year terms for each of the top three officers, with the second vice president moving up to first vice president, and then to president." One Heston backer on the board told AP: "Certainly this is an appropriate time that we not adhere to that tradition. I think the Lord’s given us a prophet and we ought not to turn our backs on what the Lord has given." Heston is best known for his role as Moses in the 1956 Hollywood classic The Ten Commandments.

As first vice president, Heston is currently on track to become NRA president in June. However, recent revelations about Heston’s role in promoting President Lyndon Johnson’s 1968 gun control legislation, and his involvement in an anti-gun group formed at the time by fellow actor Tom Laughlin, have become potentially serious speed bumps on the popular Hollywood figure’s road to higher NRA office.

The controversy erupted after the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library released documents confirming that Heston and a handful of colleagues worked closely with White House insiders to persuade the American public and Congress to support a bill to prohibit the interstate shipment of rifles, shotguns, and handgun ammunition, and to restrict out-of-state purchases of rifles and shotguns.

President Johnson had already signed into law the 1968 omnibus crime control bill, which included sundry curbs on handguns. One provision banned the interstate mail-order sale of handguns, but the President did not think that ban went far enough, and so he proposed new gun legislation targeting shotguns and rifles.

On June 10, 1968, the House Judiciary Committee scuttled the proposal. The next day, the President issued a brief statement expressing his "bitter disappointment" and declaring that "there is no excuse whatsoever for failure to act to prohibit the interstate mail-order sale of rifles." He urged the Judiciary Committee to "promptly reconsider this shocking blow to the safety of every citizen in this country."

On June 12th, Lawrence Levinson, deputy special counsel to the President, sent a memo to Heston at his home in Beverly Hills. Claiming that the interstate mail-order ban in the crime bill "is only a half-way measure" since it "covers only handguns — but fails to include shotguns and rifles," Levinson briefly outlined the President’s proposal to also place rifles under the gun control tent. That same day, Levinson explained in a memo to White House staffer Charles Maguire:

At the President’s suggestion, Jack Valenti [president of the Motion Picture Association of America and former special assistant to LBJ] has agreed to hold a luncheon in Los Angeles next Monday, June 17th, at noon (PDT), at which a number of famous movie actors — particularly those who play cowboys — will speak out in favor of the President’s gun control legislation.

For this luncheon, we need two pithy, one-page statements which will be read by two of the "cowboys" (probably Charlton Heston and John Wayne), supporting the President’s Gun Control Bill.

May I suggest that Hardesty do one and Harry Middleton do the other, with you to supply some polish.

There is no further reference to the luncheon in documents released to date. But on June 18th, Levinson sent a memo to the President outlining a far more important project:

Through Jack Valenti’s good work, five movie actors will appear on the Joey Bishop show at 11:30 tonight on Channel 7 to support strongly your gun control proposal. The actors involved are Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston, Hugh O’Brian, James Stewart, and Kirk Douglas.

They will read a very tough statement which we prepared here applauding your action in calling for strict gun control curbs.

Also on June 18th, Dick McKay of the Beverly Hills public relations firm Rogers, Cowan & Brenner, wrote to presidential assistant Joseph Califano about the project’s progress:

Enclosed are three copies of the final version of the statement released to the Associated Press and United Press International here in Los Angeles today. Hugh O’Brian asked me to send these to you.

Hugh and I met at his home last evening and I wrote a lead-in which I considered newsworthy but he felt that it was too professional and, depending upon what results are eventually achieved, he may have been right. Instead, the lead-in was something as simple and direct as "We, Kirk Douglas, James Stewart, Hugh O’Brian, Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston, wish to make the following statement...."

Charlton, Gregory, and Hugh personally planted this statement with the bureau chiefs at AP and UPI. They were greeted warmly and Hugh reports that, based on the reception and ensuing conversation, the results should be excellent. The AP also photographed the trio.

McKay then described the steps intended to deceive the public about behind-the-scenes orchestration of the enterprise: "These three stars felt that it might be detrimental for their purposes to have a press agent along with them so I merely set up all the details, which they followed through on their own. I think that their reasoning may be correct that their whole plan may get better treatment if there is, apparently, not a public relations man involved. Naturally, from a professional point of view there are very few instances where I would agree with such thinking."

I thought you might be interested in the attached statement which Hugh O’Brian read on the Joey Bishop Show last Tuesday. This was a statement subscribed to by Kirk Douglas, James Stewart, Gregory Peck and Charlton Heston and has been widely circulated throughout the country.

The statement "subscribed to" by Charlton Heston and his associates included the following:

• "We share the conviction that stronger gun control legislation is mandatory in this tragic situation."

• "The Congress has recently given us some protection against pistols in the wrong hands. But that’s not enough … not nearly enough. The carnage will not stop until there is effective control over the sale of rifles and shotguns."

• "For many long months, the President of the United States has asked the Congress to pass a such a law … but the Congress will not listen unless you, the voter, speak out.... Unless the people of this country rise up and demand that the Congress give us a strong and effective gun control law."

After summarizing the President’s proposed legislation, and citing the House and Senate bill numbers, the statement declared: "We urge you, as a responsible, sensible, and concerned citizen, to write or wire your senator and congressman immediately and demand they support these bills."

The effort had the intended impact. On July 14th the House approved the measure by a vote of 305 to 118. On September 18th, the Senate followed suit by a tally of 70 to 17. As described by the 1969 World Book Encyclopedia Yearbook, "On October 22 [1968], the first major gun control law in 30 years was enacted. It was the strongest gun control legislation in the nation’s history." As finally approved, the legislation:

• Outlawed the mail-order sales of all rifles, shotguns, and ammunition, except between licensed dealers, manufacturers, and gun collectors.

• Banned the sale of rifles, shotguns, and handguns to persons under 21 years of age.

• Banned direct sales of guns to out-of-state residents unless the state involved specifically authorized its citizens to buy guns in adjoining states.

In a related development that year, actor Tom Laughlin (best known for his later roles in "Billy Jack" movies) formed an anti-gun movement called "Ten Thousand Americans for Reasonable Gun Control." Initially, it attracted the support of many movie and television personalities, but most subsequently deserted the group. The NRA’s American Rifleman magazine for October 1968 quoted Laughlin as stating: "They were all hepped up for 2 weeks. The commitment couldn’t last any longer than that. It’s frightening to me."

But not everyone jumped ship. As reported by the American Rifleman, "Laughlin cited as diehards who stuck with his anti-gun movement a ‘little more than a handful’" — including Charlton Heston.

Heston has expressed a desire to move the NRA into the political "mainstream." He has downplayed the significance of the Brady waiting-period law, claiming not only that it is "cosmetic" and "meaningless," but that "I don’t care if they keep the Brady Act forever." During a May 9, 1997 interview on San Francisco radio station KGO, Heston, who had just been elected NRA first vice president the previous day, was asked if he would try to get "the right-wing folks off the [NRA] board and out of the picture." He replied, "That’s certainly the intention, and I think it’s highly doable."

On March 6th of this year, the NRA issued a press release defending Heston and labeling as "a few minor dissidents" those who have expressed concern about his support of LBJ’s gun control agenda and involvement in the Laughlin group. Such critics, the NRA claimed, "have attempted to smear and impugn" his integrity. The bulk of the release consisted of 11 commendable gun-related quotations excerpted from Heston speeches and media appearances during 1997. However, the Johnson Library documents were not mentioned, and the vexing questions they raise went unanswered. The release concluded: "In response to those self-serving dissidents who have criticized him, Mr. Heston said simply, ‘I stand by my record.’ We, too, stand on that record along with nearly three million NRA members committed to preserving our Second Amendment freedoms."

Dismissing as "self-serving dissidents" those who are justifiably concerned about the reliability of Heston’s pro-gun commitment, while ignoring the important questions raised by the crucial role he played in the passage of anti-gun legislation which the NRA vigorously opposed, is likely to fuel rather than dissipate the controversy. Gun advocates, including more than just "a few minor dissidents" within the NRA itself, are anxious to know the extent to which Heston’s position today differs, deep down and not just rhetorically, from that which he espoused earlier. Beyond that, there is the question of whether or not a "mainstream" NRA purged of its "right-wing" element can effectively keep gun-control zealots at bay.

For once,you are right. It's just recognized as existing as a part of the natural state of man.

The Constitution recognizes capital punishment and you are invited to identify which fictional inalienable God-given right is not taken away by capital punishment.

As for the rest of your massive brain fart,copying and pasting 10,000 worlds of bloviating bullshit neither makes you right nor intelligent. It just proves you are anal and unable to make your case using logic and a few words,so you turn to boring everyone to death with 10 thousand words that may or may not have anything to do with the subject but nobody knows because our eyes get glassy and we nod off at the second paragraph.

Or is it you keep positing court findings because you are incapable of making the distinction between what lawyers and judges "find",which can sometimes mean that Sunday is Tuesday,and reality?

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

But, you are the faggot family patriarch. You stated that 40% of America is faggots because that's the percentage that exsists in your family.

Logical conclusion: it was not until 1968 that it became illegal for any free citizen to be in possession of a firearm. In reality, it became illegal for many free citizens to be in possession of a handgun before Charlton Heston was born.

Concealed weapons have a long history of being excluded, even by state constitution.

Two lies in a row,and the saddest part is you are too stupid to even understand you are lying.

Prove me wrong,bubba! Lead us all to a post where I wrote anything even remotely similar to your delusional claim.

What is behind this? Is it your desire to "normalize" homosexuality by making other people seem queer who aren't,so that YOU seem like less of a freak because YOU are queer and in the closet?

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Or maybe he is posting what we actually live under. Not the way we wish it should be or even the way it should be.

That is off topic on this thread. You don't need to call him a fag on every thread. Save it for when that is the actual topic of discussion. Thanks.

Nah,he is either an actual lawyer,or a wannabe lawyer. He is ready at the drop of a hat to argue either side of any argument. He just likes to post dozens of pages of copy and paste to confuse any issue to try to make people think he is smart.

If he were a tenth as smart as he thinks he is,he would realize two things about the post under discussion. The first is that The Sullivan Law ONLY applied to NYC,and only lasted because no law firm wanted to take the city to court and win because of the consequeces,and secondly,NYC isn't really a part of America in any more than the technical sense.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Not really. I'm not going to make a hobby out of this because it is a lot more work to create new content than to copy and paste crap from law reviews,but here goes.

1:The Sullivan Act ONLY applied to NYC,and was only a "law" because it was never challenged in a court.

2:GCA-68 created a whole blizzard of new paperwork requirements,included ammunition and accessory sales and records in some cases,was federal instead of state of city,including mail order restrictions,and most likely a bunch of other differences.

Comparing a city or state gun regulation to a federal regulation/law is like comparing a mosquito bite to a crocodile bite.

State laws versus feral laws is a messy argument that lawyers LOVE because there is no end to the billing hours,but the quick summation on this is "States don't enact laws that apply to other states or the federal government,but the federal government,using the US Constitution as a spring board DOES enact laws that apply to all the states.

However,states DO have a right to pass and enforce any laws they wish,and can only be forced to change those laws if the laws can be challenged on a Constitutional basis.

It really is a very murky swamp to wade into,though. What is legal one day might be found to be illegal the next,due solely to interpretation.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

No way do states have the 'right' to pass laws that infringe on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property,- like guns.

Pete, by using that argument, you're playing into nolu chumps hand. --- The 14th is quite specific, --- as is the rest of the Constitution, -- state officals of every stripe are constitutionally obligated to honor and obey EVERY aspect of the document.

Which is why I wrote "it was only a "law" because it was never challenged in court."

So what? It means nothing if the citizenry are content to let them get away with it. In many (most?) cases the citizens are so ignorant about their Constitutional Rights that they don't even know they are being screwed,so they see no reason to complain. Others that do know and let that stuff pass anyhow because they like seeing that particular sacred cow gored are people too stupid to realize that one day it will be THEIR sacred cow getting gored,and THEY created the precedent that made it possible.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

The most obvious mass legal prohibition of gun ownership to citizens came forth in the infamous Black Laws that followed the 14th Amendment declaration of Black citizenship.

It has to do with the insufferable claim that RKBA is an inalienable right given by God Almighty hisself. The Constitution recognizes capital punishment which takes away all rights, including the mythical inalienable rights.

Well, as we see the N chump has replied by claiming our rights are insufferable, that our RKBA's are alienable, and that The Constitution recognizes capital punishment which takes away all rights, including the 'mythical inalienable rights'.

The Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were supposed to give African-American’s the same rights as all other US citizens. Just as the South found ways to keep black people from voting, it also found ways to ensure that they remained unarmed and vulnerable to coercion by violence. The adoption of “Black Codes” by Southern legislatures directly contradicted the spirit and letter of these newly enacted amendments, but were enforced anyway. Although Black Codes applied to many different aspects of life, one of its major aims was to keep blacks from possessing firearms. For example, Mississippi’s Black Code states: “Be it enacted . . . that no freedman, free Negro or mulatto, not in the military . . . and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition.”

Not sure of the exact term I am looking for,but something that is clearly un-Constitutional on the face of it may be some sort of local ordinance,but it can NOT be an actual law BECAUSE it IS un-Constitutional.

Sadly,WAAAAAY too much of this crap doesn't get flushed as quickly as it should because most people are ignorant of their own rights,and care even less about the rights of others. In most cases where someone that will and does stand up to un-Constitutional arrest charges almost always has the local courts dismiss the charges because the judges know the charges are un-Constitutional and fear an appeal to higher courts that will get that "handy little tool to keep the peons in line" stripped away from them and leave THEM potentially facing charges if they try to use it again. I know of instances where this has happened,and I am almost certain you have,also.

Like every other crime,knowingly prosecuting a citizen using a un-Constitutional law is not a crime until it comes to the official attention of a higher court. That's why local courts drop charges designed purely to keep the locals slapped into "their proper place" if any of the locals stand up on their hind legs and protest it.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

The joke is on you because your lame attempt at being snotty is actually true. Back in that mythical time,clubs,stones,or edged weapons were the "guns" of the day because all guns are is a subset of the word "weapon".

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

That is what insufferable boors do. It's the nature of the beast. His mommy at one point started telling him what a "SPECIAL" little boy he is,SO much smarter than all the other little boys,and now he feels compelled to prove it by posting pages of legalese and semi-legalese contentions he copies and pastes from the internet. I doubt he even believes most of the crap he posts himself. He just likes to argue,and he LOVES "winning" the arguments,so he uses that crap as props to confuse and silence people,thereby "winning". Boil it all down to the basics,and the truth is a turd is still a turd,even if it's dressed up in court findings.

He is a lawyer or dreams of becoming a lawyer,so he spends every minute of every waking hour trying to figure out how to turn lies into truths,and to confuse issues and obstruct truths he doesn't like. It's who he is and what he does.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Give him a chance,and he will argue that water is dry and dust is wet,and produce 10,000 pages of brain farts written in ancient Greek to "prove" his point.

It's not fair to blame him for what Mother Nature did,even if he is obsessed with outdoing her by "improving" on her work.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

I think you're being too fair. -- I'd bet he has an anti-constitutional agenda, and is probably a closet progressive.

How else can you explain people like Jim-mah Cawtur,assorted Kennedy's,the Bushes,Bubba Bill,etc,etc,etc?

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

It is an Act that was passed by both chambers of the STATE legislature and signed into law by the governor. If you had any functioning brain cells at all, you wouldd know that cities do not pass such Act and enact them into law.

Timothy Sullivan was a New York STATE senator representing the State's twelfth district.

New York Penal Law § 400.00 Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms

I won't make a habit of this either. I will only call your bullshit as long as you keep repeating your bullshit.

The Sullivan Act IS a law, a New York STATE LAW. It is codified under N.Y.P.L. § 400.00.

Timothy Sullivan was a New York STATE senator representing the State's twelfth district.

New York Penal Law § 400.00 Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms

Then why did we only hear about people in NYC being prosecuted for violating it?

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 165.