Posted on 03/18/2002 4:18:27 PM PST by 45Auto
Edited on 07/09/2004 12:50:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Jim March is a self-described "gun nut," frustrated because the Contra Costa County Sheriff's office won't give him a concealed-weapons permit.
The towering redhead from Pittsburg has taken his beef with the sheriff over the permit to federal court, saying county Sheriff Warren Rupf and a few police chiefs in 2000 violated his constitutional rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at trivalleyherald.com ...
LOL, you bet!
Any update on your site soon? What's the status of your appeal with Judge Alsup? Are you going to appeal to a higher court? What can Californians do to help?
The only head I saw get the chop was Tpaines. You gripped about Texas taking over a gun thread, but as soon as you had ample oppertunity (he got the boot) you let into him. Hmmm.....
BTW... It was viciously funny to see not one Libertarian admit that drugs was the prime incentive for their support of the party. Anyone who has half a brain, can view two or three drug threads and see who tooth and nail fights for free drug choise and read between the lines why.
That's why we see so many half-witted Drug Warriors around here, they are only using half a brain.
This thread wasn't/isn't about drugs or libertarians, and those that are are not being argued, generally speaking, because the individuals want to use drugs, but A) they disagree with the motivation and conduct of the WoD; B) they believe that a person has the right to his own body, even if they do not agree with what one does.
If you weren't so busy 'reading between the lines' and actually pay attention to what the posters are saying, you'd understand that. Instead you have your notions and no amount of disclaimers from those that oppose the WoD will appease you. None. Your mind is made up, you have no room for anything else.
As to our little discussion here, [so rudely interrupted], I made some comments over on the GI forum, in hopes that they won't be further censored:
'Flame war' or Constitutional debate? Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/650379/posts
This thread was about gun control, not about supposed pro drug libertarians. There are plenty of other threads where you can vent your WoD frustrations, but this wasn't supposed to be one of them.
This was your first post on this thread. It had nothing to do with the subject at hand. But was a blind one sided attack on Texas with total disregard to tpaine part. Again one wonders why? Again it doesn't take half a brain to figure if you were TRUELY concerned over the thread straying from the original subject, you would of mentioned both parties (both the so called Drug Warriors and pro-druggy sides). But I guess an Eagle tends to view matters with one Eye closed.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, then support the legal private ownership of nukes.
Sorry, but you will first have to explain your dementia on this subject, and its relationship to prohibitive unconstitutional state laws on guns, drugs or other mildly dangerous types of property that are constitutionally protected. [see the 9th].
The police power of the state is fully justified to write criminal law restricting private possession of virtually uncontrolable 'CBN' type weapons of mass destruction. -- This is a rational libertarian use of force, imo. - 118 - by tpaine
Well that's nice and all, but we are talking about the Constitution. How is it constitutional to ban THAT particular property, yet unconstitutional to ban the other?
You aren't paying attention. States can use their police power to write criminal law restricting criminal use of actual dangerous property. - Within constitutional bounds.
Guns, drugs, feelthy pics, nasty words, etc, -- Are NOT dangerous to all life in an area, -- as are CBN weaopons.
Seems to me that you are saying that the USC is based on your rational. I would just like to see where it says that.
Seems to me that you lack common sense on the subject.
Thank you for your invitation.
Eat crow.
Once again you are simply using your own feelings to govern what power the States have. You claim the 14th prevents states from prohibiting ANYTHING, yet you say that it is merited with "ACTUAL DANGEROUS" property. Who gets to decide when something is too dangerous? Sure a nuke is more dangerous than a crack head, but who gets to draw the line where? You apparently think it is drawn in the USC, but have not shown where. The reason being, each state is left to decide for themselves. I, along with the rest of my state see hard drugs as "ACTUAL DANGEROUS" property just as we do nukes.
BTW. you'll not suck me into this debate. At least not here and now....
Here's a simple request, drop it, ok?
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.