Posted on 12/31/2016 4:19:09 AM PST by marktwain
| Judge T. Henley Graves |
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.The departments mentioned ban the possession of guns from public parks and state forests, unless the person is actually hunting with a valid hunting license.
This is not the club s first involvement in a lawsuit. It filed a brief in support of a 2010 complaint by two residents against the Wilmington Housing Authority and the authority s ban on guns in common areas of its public housing complexes. In 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court decided that the ban was unlawful under Delaware s Constitution. Also unlawful, the court decision said, was the authority s requirement that residents who owned guns have any permit or license available at all times for inspection.
We were successful in ensuring that people who live in public housing have the same rights as everyone else, Hague said.
Winning the current suit would benefit people who travel to Sussex County to participate in shooting competitions at the rifle club, Hague said: We have a lot of competitors who like to go camping. They like to come down for a weekend, attend a match and then camp at Trap Pond State Park.It would seem the suit is a slam dunk. The constitutional provision is clear. Precedent has been established by a previous state supreme court decision. But the local Superior Court Judge was not convinced.
On Friday, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the state, saying the regulations do not violate Delaware's Constitution.
"The regulations do not run afoul of the Delaware Constitution, defendants were not pre-empted by the General Assembly in enacting the regulations, and defendants did not exceed the scope of the authority granted to them by statute in promulgating the regulations" wrote Judge T. Henley Graves.
The judge concluded that the state agencies have an important governmental objective of keeping the public safe from the potential harm of firearms in parks and forests.So, a constitutional provision that guarantees the right to protect yourself with arms, can be overridden by a regulatory agency because the agency has an important government objective of "keeping the public safe from the potential harm of firearms"?
A new sheriff is in town and I believe he has the power to fire these rebels
If you’re talking about Trump, his authority does not extend to state officials.
If you’re talking about Trump, his authority does not extend to state officials.
Can he be voted out?
So we should hope that the fed gov starts enforcing 50 sets of state laws now? No thanks. I’d prefer it if the state citizens took responsibility for their own state’s politics.
TC
He should be...
Precedent? Is it no wonder we are no longer the Republic of our Founding?
Not ONE dares to say 1+1 != 3. There is *NO* way to battle against these ‘rules’, where logic and reason has no place.
When the boxcars come around again, all they’ve got to advertise will be “Free tixs to NFL Tonight\Dancing w/ Stars\Tupac” and they’ll voluntary lines of waiting.
In many states it is illegal to take a gun into a “public” building. Here in Reno the Crossroads Gun Show is held at the Convention Center which is a gun free zone. Not suppose to CC there. Most do it anyway. It is a quasi .gov agency.
SECTION 25
WEAPONS & CONCEALED HANDGUNS
A. In accordance with provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes and Washoe County Codes, it is the policy of the RSCVA that
handguns and other weapons are strictly prohibited in the RSCC. Individuals who fail to comply with this prohibition, or
otherwise violate penal laws with respect to carrying a handgun or other weapon, are subject to immediate arrest and
prosecution under NRS Chapter 202.3673.
B. This prohibition applies to all persons including concealed handgun Licensees, but does not apply to licensed law enforcement
officers.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Ghastly Graves ALERT!
So many judges are fools.
One place Trump does have authority is the local government of the District of Columbia which is entirely a creation of federal statute, being, not a state, but the governing body of the constitutionally provided federal seat of government.
This seditious dimwit just violated his oath to the Constitution. Impeach him and ship his @ss to North Korea...where he’ll be much happier.
Define “valid.”
red
Actually, the President has NO authority over DC (except the authority to veto laws).
CONGRESS has the power to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" arising in the District of Columbia. That phrase "in all cases whatsoever" had a special meaning to the Founder's generation, because, as Paine wrote in the American Crisis, "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth".
All of the absurd limitations on firearms in DC could be ended tomorrow by simple legislation.
Define “valid.”
legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law.
“a valid contract”
"The executive power shall be vested in the President."
D.C. Judges are appointed by the President.
There is no need for new law. We already have court decisions on the right to bear arms. The district feels free to ignore shall issue orders from the federal courts.
so lemme ask this- if a state can arbitrarily ban the second amendment and ignore national constitution like that- can they also say “We will no longer allow people of color to walk in our parks and forests”? Or “Women are no longer allowed to hold jobs in our state or vote in elections”?
Of course they can!
They haven’t because it goes against their agenda to do so at the moment!
The Constitution sets limits on what the State can do. “Progressives” hate that above all else, because they worship the State as God.
Wilson arbitrarily segregated the Military, because Racism was “in” as a “Progressive” cause at the time.
Obama has arbitrarily demanded that the mentally ill people known as “Transgender”, be treated exactly the same as normal men and women in the military, because it is a “Progressive” cause at this time.
It is all about the arbitrary abuse of power without limit. That is what “Progressives” have always demanded.
Take to the logical level, and you get Nazism, Communism, Cuba, and Venezuela. Because if more than one person has power, the others with power are a limit on their power.
Eventually one “strong man” ends up having as unlimited of power as he can accumulate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.