DENVER VS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Stanley for U.S. Senate Campaign ^ | December 15, 2001 - Bill of Rights Day | N/A

[takenoprisoner]

LMAO, still macho flashing I see.

Yea and I see you snuck a peek.

[VA Advogado]

Gee thats funny. Another Denver lawyer filed suit based on the same law being unconstitutional and the court rejected it because he did not have standing. He had to ammend the complaint to prove he was somehow injured by the statute.

But he didn't get himself arrested did he? My point exactly. You don't have to be arrested to have standing to challenge a law. Dunce.

[VA Advogado]

You will benefit from the liberty these libertarians suffer to bring you, but you will never thank them for their efforts.

I'm suppose to take seriously this posting of - yours - someone that idolizes a comic book character? LOL

[The Green Goblin]

I'm suppose to take seriously this posting of - yours - someone that idolizes a comic book character? LOL

If you're trying to refute my argument based on my screen name, then you've clearly lost the debate.

[CJ Wolf]

And a national database.

[VA Advogado]

And a national database.

While Ashcroft is fighting the liberals who want to access a national database, the libertarians are slamming him for enforcing the Patriot Act. No wonder they have no friends.

[CJ Wolf]

He is not fighting them...he is posturing so that they will let him use it. It is illegal to do so now, and he wants everything to be nice and legal. It was something that little PATRIOT act forgot to ammend. Now, do you really think he wouldn't use it if it could net him a few terrorists? They will give him the power and he will use it, and you will still be convinced he is fighting liberal gun grabbers. BTW, How do you propose to track the national carry permit?

[VA Advogado]

How do you propose to track the national carry permit?

Despite what others on this thread seems to think, I haven't advocated for a national permit. I envision a national preemption of state laws that prohibit CCW. But to some bizzare reason that is just as offensive to the kooks here.

[CJ Wolf]

Wait a second, you want a national permit to carry? Or a national legal ok to carry with out a permit? Under what you are working for, would someone have to apply for a permit to carry one nationally?

You are right, I do not have enough information about your plan. Please enlighten me.

[Zon]

Wait a second, you want a national permit to carry? Or a national legal ok to carry with out a permit? Under what you are working for, would someone have to apply for a permit to carry one nationally?

I too am curious to hear him answers those questions. As far as I know "..shall not be infringed" is easily understood.

[VA Advogado]

You are right, I do not have enough information about your plan. Please enlighten me.

I say again:

"Despite what others on this thread seems to think, I haven't advocated for a national permit. I envision a national preemption of state laws that prohibit CCW. But [for] some bizzare reason that is just as offensive to the kooks here."

This means simply the feds prohibit the states from prohibiting where you can carry a concealed weapon.

[CJ Wolf]

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying you want the federal government to say that a state can choose to issue CCW but not restrict where someone may conceal? Or that it is illegal for states to issue CCW because we have this inaliable right and everyone has a right to conceal a weapon?

Please be specific, I don't really want to chastise anyone that isn't worthy of it.

[Iron Eagle]

This would be an excellent time to remind everyone that the Declaration of Independence, a most revered document, is not the law. Thus, people who use its lines for the purpose of purporting to represent rights, are a bit confused. At best, it is the legislative history of our Constitution. It represented the ideals that which we hoped a new nation would embody.

I was reminded of this by Justice Scalia. I once questioned him about abortion by saying, "isn't it true that of the rights declared by our founding fathers, they choose to declare first, the right to life? For without the right to life, one certainly enjoys no other rights, especially liberty."

Scalia, speaking to a small group of Thomas More members at my law school said, "The Constitution is a nice puff-piece, but it ain't the law."

I certainly support the right to keep and bear arms, but I think any arguments on its legitamacy should come from the U.S. Constitution. Frankly, I have read the Second Amendment more than once, and I find it hard to reconcile the language with the unfettered rights some advocate. (Rights with which I agree in principle).

[VA Advogado]

Please be specific, I don't really want to chastise anyone that isn't worthy of it.

I refer to a federal law which, once enacted, would prohibit the states from prohibiting where you can carry a concealed weapon. The states would then not be able to limit where you can CCW. I simply can not make this any clearer.

[VA Advogado]

Are you saying you want the federal government to say that a state can choose to issue CCW but not restrict where someone may conceal?

Under this law the states would not be able to prohibit where you could carry a concealed weapon.

[Libloather]

Thank you for your eloquent analysis of the issue.

No prob. Anytime. Say, was the forum ever privileged and fortunate enough to read your analysis? (Just another Liberteen - eh?)

[MileHi]

But he didn't get himself arrested did he? My point exactly. You don't have to be arrested to have standing to challenge a law. Dunce.

He is also in appeal because the lower court felt he hadn't been damaged. They avoided the constitutional aspect. Because it is not a criminal matter, there was no jury, only a liberal judge. Moron.

[jonathonandjennifer]

I am all for the 2nd Amendment. But silly stunts like this take away from those of us that want national CCW.

SILLY STUNT?.....
Like the Boston Tea Party?
Like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white person?

[wwjdn]

bttt

[Chemist_Geek]

So you mean it is now Constitutional for the local governments to abuse Constitutioal rights? Wonder when that happened.

Since they wrote the Bill of Rights. The BoR never restricted local or state governments. It was not until after the War Between the States and the ratification of the 14^th Amendment that the BoR began to be applied to governments "inferior" to the federal government.