Quick Question: What is a .50 cal BMG rifle?

[Ken H]

I wrote: Or to put your position more candidly-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that States may infringe."

rp wrote: Or to put my position more truthfully-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution.

Either way, you think a State may infringe a fundamental right.

If you disagree with that statement, please show me where that has not happened.

I thought we were talking about your opinion. Why are you throwing in case law?

It would make the discussion go more smoothly if you would be clear on when you are giving your opinion vs when you are stating case law, IMO.

[robertpaulsen]

"to correct errors which both of us admit"

Whoa! I didn't say "errors". Don't put words into my mouth.

I said it was inconsistent with other cases, and "for some reason" they ruled differently. I don't know the reason. You don't know the reason. AFAIK, it could be a valid reason.

"Such is the expected consequence of unConstitutional decisions."

Now see? You state this as though it were a fact. It's not. It's your opinion. Looks like fact though, doesn't it?

[robertpaulsen]

I stated it as a fact originally in my post #504.

"Either way, you think a State may infringe a fundamental right."

Of course. They do it all the time. "Free" speech is infringed left and right.

Opinion. Fact. Whatever. Are you saying it makes a difference to you? Hah!

Unless you agree, feel free to dispute the above if you want to (or if you can). Otherwise ... well, we know the rest of that one, don't we?

[Ken H]

I wrote: Either way, you think a State may infringe a fundamental right.

rp wrote: Of course. They do it all the time. "Free" speech is infringed left and right.

There you go again. We know the facts.

The point you avoided in that reply is that robertpaulsen thinks the States may legitimately disarm citizens.

Unless you agree, feel free to dispute the above if you want to (or if you can). Otherwise ... well, we know the rest of that one, don't we?

Oops, you did it again.

[robertpaulsen]

"robertpaulsen thinks the States may legitimately disarm citizens."

Ah. Why didn't you get specific the first time? Why are you wasting my time talking in generalities?

As to the above -- well it's not true now, is it? Of course, I could ask you what would stop Califirnia from doing so, but you couldn't answer that one and you would end up looking foolish. So I won't.

I would get into more detail, but you wasted all my time with that other silly post of yours.

[Ken H]

I wrote: robertpaulsen thinks the States may legitimately disarm citizens.

rp wrote: As to the above -- well it's not true now, is it?

According to you, it is:

Or to put my position more truthfully-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution.

Like I said, robertpaulsen thinks the States may legitimately disarm citizens.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "I said it was inconsistent with other cases, and "for some reason" they ruled differently. I don't know the reason. You don't know the reason. AFAIK, it could be a valid reason."

Post 462 by robertpaulsen: "You are correct, it shouldn't."

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Well, what was the ruling? This is like the second or third time I've asked."

robertpaulsen also said:"Based on other (non-second-amendment) cases, I would not have expected the USSC in Miller to limit the weapon to an association with a militia arm."

Tell us again, robertpaulsen, how a remand is not a ruling. Are you confusing the concept of final disposition with that of a court ruling? Complex cases have many court rulings, sometimes conflicting rulings due to involvement of appeals courts. Some rulings, such as the original dismissal of the case against Miller are overturned by Supreme Court rulings. Are you going to continue claiming that the lower court was not "over-ruled" by the Supreme Court. Do you really think that the lower court's ruling can be set aside WITHOUT a ruling by the higher?

[tpaine]

I bet you're a big believer in the right of a group of similarly-minded individuals getting together in one state to decide how they will live.
If they live the way you want, that is.


But if they decide they want to live in a state without machine guns, oh, watch out. That's not allowed. They must allow that.

I bet you'd like to make it a law that people must own guns. Not that you'd admit it.

532 posted on 08/05/2004 9:49:18 AM PDT by robertpaulsen

______________________________________


Freedom is a real problem for you, I guess.
Are you suggesting that it would be permissible to re-enslave black people if a simple majority of the people decide to do that?

At least finally we see that you are a "majority rules" guy and that arguing for limitations on government control are not to be tolerated. If a legislature passes a law and the courts allow it then that is a good
thing.

The serious question which remains is; why are you on FreeRepublic?
Who here, besides you, agrees with that philosophy of government which suggests that anything desired by the majority is to be allowed?
-William Tell-

______________________________________


Congrats.. -- Slowly but surely you and Ken are getting paulsen to 'out' himself as a gun-hating majority rule socialist.

Notice he couldn't respond to your comments on his politics.

He only wants to argue, on & on, over & over, -- in a peculiar circular pattern about judicial infringements on our RKBA's.
The man obviously fancies himself as a great debater, little realising that his infringement arguments prove our points, not his.
-- No governments in our constitutional system, -- neither State or Federal, have EVER been granted the power to infringe upon our RKBA's.

Our boy paulsen quite carefully avoids that subject.

[robertpaulsen]

Ah, the remand was the ruling (sound of hand slapping forehead)! Well, there you have it.

Yep, Miller is one useful case all right. We don't dare set it aside with a powerful ruling like that, says William Tell.

[tpaine]

Your pitiful attempts at sarcasm become you paulsen. -- That is all you have left.

[robertpaulsen]

"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

You disagree? Oh, this I gotta hear. Wait, let me get something to drink and get settled.

OK, Ken H, tell me how wrong I am and why.

[robertpaulsen]

"I claim that, in Cuba, the government does not allow their people liberty and freedom. Are you saying that I don't support liberty and freedom? Are you going to say that I'm lying?"
-- robertpaulsen

"Yes, I am."
-- tpaine

Don't bother posting to me, tpaine. You're insane.

[inquest]

I said it was inconsistent with other cases, and "for some reason" they ruled differently. I don't know the reason. You don't know the reason. AFAIK, it could be a valid reason.

If it was a valid reason, then they would have stated the reason, don't you think?

[Ken H]

"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

You disagree? Oh, this I gotta hear. Wait, let me get something to drink and get settled.

OK, Ken H, tell me how wrong I am and why.

It would be more clear had you used the entire quote:

"Or to put my position more truthfully-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution." rp

I believe that is your position, although I wouldn't bet any money on it because you also said:

I've always believed in the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model) interpretation of the second amendment.

But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model". [that individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service]

Can you see why I wouldn't bet any money on what you really believe the Second Amendment means?

[tpaine]

Here you claim:

The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution.
552 robertpaulsen

You have also claimed:

I claim that, in Cuba, the government does not allow their people liberty and freedom.
Are you saying that I don't support liberty and freedom? Are you going to say that I'm lying?" -- robertpaulsen

Yes, I am. At #552 you claim that State legislators can infringe upon one of our fundamental rights, -- the same exact thing that Cuba's 'legislators' claim they can do.

-- Yet you insist that you support liberty & freedom.

Don't bother posting to me, tpaine. You're insane.

-- Everyone on this thread is saying, [some more nicely than others] that YOU are the one making the 'insane' posts here, paulsen .

Keep it up. I don't want you to stop making a fool of yourself, and your 'states rights' position.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Ah, the remand was the ruling (sound of hand slapping forehead)! Well, there you have it. "

Have you found anyone yet who claims that a remand is not a ruling?

Have you found anyone yet who is aware of any case that has been remanded without guidance to the lower courts.

Are you of the opinion that the guidance provided in the Miller ruling was optional? Do you think that the lower court could have ignored it? You claim that there was nothing there. If the trial court judge had once again dismissed the case on Second Amendment grounds without trial, and the prosecution once again appealed, what do you suppose the Supreme Court would have done?

Do you think the Supreme Court is helpless? Or do they have the US Marshall's Service at their disposal?

And finally, how do you account for so many lower courts citing the Miller ruling in their own rulings. Was it irrelevant to these lower court rulings?

[robertpaulsen]

Apples and oranges, Ken H.

Apples deals with state constitutions and state laws. Oranges deals with federal infingement of the rights protected by apples.

No one (that is no one) has successfully appealed a state RKBA infingement using the second amendment. States are bound only by their state constitution.

The second amendment, whatever the interpretation only restrains federal laws.

Now, back to my statement: "The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

I again ask you to refute that statement. Look, you can't. Forget about it. Just stop throwing it around like it's some whacky pronouncement.

[robertpaulsen]

"If the trial court judge had once again dismissed the case on Second Amendment grounds without trial, and the prosecution once again appealed, what do you suppose the Supreme Court would have done?"

That was a question I asked you some posts ago.

If the weapon was indeed found to be a militia-type weapon (as the USSC instructed the trial court to explore) and the trial court again dismissed the case (as it surely would), then what?

Would the prosecution see the writing on the wall and not even appeal? Probably. But if it did go to the USSC ... well, a lot of questions would have been answered. In 1938? I have no idea how they would have ruled, though their interest in a relationship to a militia causes me some consternation.

"And finally, how do you account for so many lower courts citing the Miller ruling in their own rulings."

Because they see what they want to see. Just as you see the second amendment as binding on every level of government extending the right to any weapon by anyone anywhere anytime.

[robertpaulsen]

"Everyone on this thread is saying, [some more nicely than others] that YOU are the one making the 'insane' posts here"

"Saying" is not "refuting". A distiction with a difference.

Goodbye tpaine. Seek help. I be done with you.