“...under no circumstances...” really means “except where we don’t like that”.
DemocRAT policy director becomes judge and issues political judicial decision.... all going according to plan.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
IOW,there are states where *most* of the apples in the barrel are rotten.
Ok Judge. And for the safety of yourself, and the court, the Baliff will be armed with?
If there is no law, there is no law
A tyrannical judge has no protection on his life under the law
Does MO have concealed carry?
If so, bet the judge has a permit...
That they can not be trusted with a firearm should be viewed as a tremendous indictment against that college or university's admission program, student life program and general academic program.
In a sane world, no local, state or federal law enforcement agency or military would recruit from such an institution. Rationally, if the University doesn't trust their students with a firearm, why should a prospective employer trust their graduates?
Overview
Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. Strict scrutiny is often used by courts when a plaintiff sues the government for discrimination. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review which a court will use to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental discrimination. The other two standards are intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review.
Application
Equal Protection
Strict scrutiny will often be invoked in an equal protection claim. For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have passed a law that infringes upon a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications include race, national origin, religion, and alienage.
Other Applications
The application of strict scrutiny, however, extends beyond issues of equal protection. Restrictions on content-based speech, for instance, are to be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard as well. Notably, the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment.
From Legal Information Institute
Lawyers... Don't you just hate those guys....
In the Commonwealth of Massachussetts in 1775, Committees of Safety arrested judges who worked against the People because they issued unfair orders confiscating lands, farms, tools, crops and animals for non payment of punitive royal taxes. The Committees of Safety gave these judges 24 hours to pack up their family goods and leave for Boston with letters patent from the Committees of Safety which terminated their judeships, replacing them with candidates elected by the People.
Looks like we have a need to do it again.
If a complete prohibition on a large campus of a public university is “narrowly-tailored,” couldn’t a complete prohibition in a city also be “narrowly-tailored”? The District Court failed to develop a bright line distinguishing where Constitutional rights apply and where they don’t.
Instead, he developed a utilitarian doctrine: that if experts “agree” that limiting or outright prohibiting Constitutional rights is good, then those rights can (and, maybe, must) be limited or prohibited. As it is, the judge said the plaintiff offered no alternative empirical argument regarding whether citizens possessing guns are good. He infers from this that there is no such argument (and, implicitly, that the people acted stupidly to enact the Constitutional Amendment that they did.
From his standpoint, he should have offered the plaintiff a continuation to develop such an empirical argument. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, would make a great witness as to how possession of guns is good. Then, with conflicting testimony as to whether guns are good, he should recognize that it is for the legislature (in this case, the people acting directly as the legislature) to decide the matter.
BTW Because of recent state legislation and court rulings, ten states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses. These states are Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. May a dozen other states allow persons to keep guns if locked in their vehicles.
Impeach. Convict. Remove. Indict. No plea bargain. Try. Convict. Sentence. Incarcerate. No parole. Precedent established.
Impeach. Convict. Remove. Indict. No plea bargain. Try. Convict. Sentence. Incarcerate. No parole. Precedent established.
We don’t have District Court judges in Missouri. They are Circuit Court judges.
RSMO 571.107 (excerpt) No concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
(10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body....
2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit shall not be a criminal act. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.
This is why you never vote for ANY democrat for ANY reason.
Next, the necessity to prevent “hate speech” will override right of free speech.