DENVER VS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

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

[rwfromkansas]

Oh, so the Supreme Court is the Gospel to you? Whatever they say HAS to be right? Shut up, asshole

[weikel]

You don't believe in the 2nd amendment I guess.

[monday]

"but later came back, with an empty holster"

Surprised he came back? I wouldn't have.

[Roscoe]

When did you start learning to add or subtract?

How long is forever and a day?

[Buckeroo]

less than infinity, I suppose.

[rwfromkansas]

Nice to know you would support the Supreme Court if it called the entire Bill of Rights unconstitutional or something. After all, you have no problem with upholding their decisions on gun cases, all teh while claiming to support the 2nd Amendment. It is hard for me to understand people like you who have no problem with a judicial dictatorship taking away our rights. Hypocrite.

[earplug]

Yes, you are correct. Lets give the powder and shot to the Crown and go home and pay our taxes. What advice do you have for people who will not allow themselves to fall into slavery?

[tbeatty]

I thought Colorado already had a right to open carry. Denver is trying to trump that right. Hopefully, the State will side with those arrested and the municipal code wil be struck down.

[El Gato]

The quote would seem to imply that the second only applies to the second amendment, but that is mere dicta,

Oh, brain freeze, or something like that,on that post, actually edititus imcompletus I think (I got mail)

What I was trying to say was that the verbage implying that the second amendment does not apply to the states was only dicta, since it was not necessary to the rulling that it did not apply to deprivation by private citizens.

[Bad~Rodeo]

FireArms Restoration Act??....LOL~ What's This BS...L~

[Demidog]

Excellent. I say repeal all CCW laws in every state and replace them with nothing. No permits. No permission from a magistrate. I do not want the government to know who is and isn't carrying weapons. I don't need to register myself with some politicians in order to defend my life.

[VA Advogado]

A national CCW would mean getting permission from the Feds to carry, that is pure insanity! The only workable soultion is CCW permits issued by every state, recognized nationally.

Thats ok. You wouldn't have to use it. The rest of us could. Actually, this law would preempt the state prohibitions. I can handle that.

[Buckeroo]

Your position is full of BS. The federal court system is constructed in such a way as to decide law UNDER the Constitution. I think all the states emulate this perspective within or about their respective constituients.

[Demidog]

But silly stunts like this take away from those of us that want national CCW.

If it was required that the government give you permission to carry your firearm, there wouldn't be a second amendment. There is no necessity for a special law allowing you to carry your firearm anyhwere you please.

What is needed is for people to stop obeying these laws and work to get rid of every statute which restricts even the slightest on this matter.

[VA Advogado]

How is dealing with local issues and a local law taking away from CCW? Give me a break.

Um, Call me a fool, but I dont think breaking ANY law helps promote legislative changes.

[Roscoe]

Another approach would be for states to issue the carry permits, rather like driving licenses. Reciprocity might eventually make de facto national CCW's possible.

[VA Advogado]

What about when the law openly forbids the carrying or even owning a weapon? Should one follow the law then? Just when is it acceptable to stand up for what you believe in, under your views? Once you can't defend them and are under a dictatorship?

Well, if you want to be an ass and get arrested and go to jail and accomplish nothing, sure. Do it. But please dont think you're helping the CCW cause because you're not.

[Buckeroo]

You mean laws are greater in power about our government than the Constitution over the same government? I will call you a fool if you believe this tripe.

[gatex]

"...And the SUPREME COURT IS WRONG..."

It appears they did not wish to overturn the two U.S. Supreme Court cases that said that the Second Amendment restricted the federal government only, and not the states, but the court was ignoring the words in the 1886 Presser case that said---

quote--"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

Link to--- Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

I think the current Supreme Court would say that states have police powers that can restrict guns in some cases, but that the Village of Morton Grove could not prohibit possession of handguns.

[Demidog]

Um, Call me a fool, but I dont think breaking ANY law helps promote legislative changes.

You're a fool. Virtually every bellweather SCOTUS case has been the result of a law broken. The repeal of prohibition was the result of many people breaking an unconstitutional and immoral law and refusing to convict their peers while serving on juries.