Return of the Wild West. Thank you, SCOTUS!

1,095 Views | 37 Replies | Last: 12 days ago by tequila4kapp
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
California gun laws targeted by Supreme Court ruling- CalMatters


https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-gun-laws-supreme-court/

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Too bad the "progressives" and Bernie supporters didnt get off the couch and vote for Hillary in 2016.
In fact, a study indicated that 1 in 10 Bernie supporters voted for Trump.
We might have had a much different looking SCOTUS.

1 In 10 Bernie Sanders Supporters Ended Up Voting For Trump : NPR
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
True, and progressive populists believe both sides are equally bad, which is a false equivalence argument that helped crater our country.

Speaking of which, does the Yogimeister post here anymore?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

California gun laws targeted by Supreme Court ruling- CalMatters


https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-gun-laws-supreme-court/



I thought conservatives are all about states' rights.



concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Breaking SCOTUS news:

Now everyone gets to carry concealed guns? Because as Clarence Thomas writes, my 2nd Amendment right protects me to have a gun on me at all times??

Please explain.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/major-amendment-case-awaiting-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85391615
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:




The penalty for violating Miranda is that evidence gained or learned as a result of such violations would be inadmissible. That is how it has always been. Either this professor sucks or the tweeter is purposely misleading.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
great victory for the second amendment, fourteenth amendment and common sense. God bless Clarence Thomas . Even Roberts. And Kavanaugh and Barrett need to protect themselves against the crazed mob who threaten them. Great day to be an American..
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Happy Birthday Clarence Thomas. A real American hero.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

great victory for the second amendment, fourteenth amendment and common sense. God bless Clarence Thomas . Even Roberts. And Kavanaugh and Barrett need to protect themselves against the crazed mob who threaten them. Great day to be an American..


If there is a God, and I am a believer, I'm pretty much sure a blessing is not what God has in store for Clarence Thomas. He has an evil countenance that he has been earning one day at a time his entire life.

The Bottomless Corruption of Ginni and Clarence Thomas | The New Republic


https://newrepublic.com/article/165866/january-6-ginni-clarence-thomas


Is Clarence Thomas the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in your lifetime?


https://www.dailykos.com/story/2022/1/21/2076138/-Is-Clarence-Thomas-the-most-corrupt-Supreme-Court-Justice-in-your-lifetime

Supreme Court's Clarence and Ginni Thomas Scandal Is Unprecedented Rolling Stone


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-ginni-thomas-texts-1327064/

A Brief History of Clarence Thomas' Ethical Entanglements - The Atlantic


https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/clarence-thomas-ethics-violations/351905/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:


I've seen this argument made by Toobin and others (crazy how the same side ends up with the same talking points!). This is a patently STUPID argument. The exclusionary rule works quite effectively to discourage Miranda abuses. Most law enforcement care about putting bad people away. Taking action that excludes incriminating evidence and allows criminals to walk the streets is a pretty big deterrent. It also has a chilling effect on offending police officers careers. I would bet a Top Dog that no cop ever in the history of the universe thought "He can't sue me personally, screw Miranda!"
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Breaking SCOTUS news:

Now everyone gets to carry concealed guns? Because as Clarence Thomas writes, my 2nd Amendment right protects me to have a gun on me at all times??

Please explain.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/major-amendment-case-awaiting-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85391615
Mischaracterization and I think you know it. SCOTUS said NYs law requiring people to demonstrate a specific need is unC. States can still regulate in this area. For example, a safety class and/or training class would surely be allowed.

I live in a Shall Issue state. We also have legalized pot. Opponents of both feared guns and pot would be everywhere and imperil society. Both have been wrong so far. I suspect NY will be just fine
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How persuaded would you be by someone who posted in opposition with stories from Breitbart, New Republic, The Federalist, etc?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Provide links to first hand accounts of what a moral, ethical an non corrupt individual Clarence Thomas is. I will read them.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

concordtom said:

Breaking SCOTUS news:

Now everyone gets to carry concealed guns? Because as Clarence Thomas writes, my 2nd Amendment right protects me to have a gun on me at all times??

Please explain.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/major-amendment-case-awaiting-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85391615
Mischaracterization and I think you know it. SCOTUS said NYs law requiring people to demonstrate a specific need is unC. States can still regulate in this area. For example, a safety class and/or training class would surely be allowed.

I live in a Shall Issue state. We also have legalized pot. Opponents of both feared guns and pot would be everywhere and imperil society. Both have been wrong so far. I suspect NY will be just fine


No, I'm being genuine.
I don't know what it means.
But I don't think it's good.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Provide links to first hand accounts of what a moral, ethical an non corrupt individual Clarence Thomas is. I will read them.


Justice Sotomayor praised Clarence Thomas as a friend who cares deeply about the court.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So he knows how to kiss ass and gladhand. Doesn't mean he isn't also a pryck.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

tequila4kapp said:

concordtom said:

Breaking SCOTUS news:

Now everyone gets to carry concealed guns? Because as Clarence Thomas writes, my 2nd Amendment right protects me to have a gun on me at all times??

Please explain.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/major-amendment-case-awaiting-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85391615
Mischaracterization and I think you know it. SCOTUS said NYs law requiring people to demonstrate a specific need is unC. States can still regulate in this area. For example, a safety class and/or training class would surely be allowed.

I live in a Shall Issue state. We also have legalized pot. Opponents of both feared guns and pot would be everywhere and imperil society. Both have been wrong so far. I suspect NY will be just fine
No, I'm being genuine.
I don't know what it means.
But I don't think it's good.
NY was one of 8 (I think) states that only issued concealed carry permits if the applicant could prove they specifically needed one. They are called "show cause" states. The remaining states are "Shall issue" states - the permits are issued after a background check, etc. as a matter of right. 2nd Am advocates would say NY's statute is a pretext for denying CC permits; gun control advocates would say it's a valuable tool to protect the public. SCOTUS said (basically) the right to protect ourselves extends beyond our houses so NY's prohibitive practice was unconstitutional. I have not read the opinion so I can't comment beyond that on what SCOTUS said…I merely observe that my own state doesn't have Armageddon because it is Shall Issue so I tend to think the critics are off base
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In California permits are issued by local sheriffs. In rural areas it's carte blanche; in San Fancisco it's impossible. So, the court is right a constitutional right is not fairly administered. Of course, the real question is never asked: what does peering into the 18th century mind have to do with the lives of 300 plus millions of a complex society the founders could have never imagined . I'm all for a right to bear arms or a right not to bear arms, whatever the people decide- and in some ways that is what is going on in California. Authoritarian states or courts should not intervene
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Current SCOTUS continues to perpetuate the greatest hoax upon the American people.
Let's be honest here.

The framers of our Constitution sought to bolster a "well regulated militia"

In a 1955 memo, Jack Basil, the NRA's constitutional authority, wrote, "From all the direct and indirect evidence, the Second Amendment appears to apply to a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms."

Then, late in the 20th century, after members voted in new militant leadership, the NRA erased from memory its prior findings to reinvent the Second Amendment and distort its meaning to claim a virtually unlimited right to keep and bear private arms.

Talk about a public relations coup in the history of the United States.
The NRA literally marketed a false, alternative history of guns and gun control in America.
Propagated mainly by attorneys with ties to the gun lobby.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

concordtom said:

tequila4kapp said:

concordtom said:

BI merely observe that my own state doesn't have Armageddon because it is Shall Issue so I tend to think the critics are off base




According to the most recent 2020 data from the CDC, the firearm death rate in the six "proper cause" states was 6.6 per 100,000, compared to 16.3 per 100,000 for the remaining 44 states. New York was 5.3

New Report Highlights U.S. 2020 Gun-Related Deaths: Highest Number Ever Recorded by CDC, Gun Homicides Increase by More Than One-Third | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health (jhu.edu)

BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

So he knows how to kiss ass and gladhand. Doesn't mean he isn't also a pryck.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not a surprise that you are a fan of a pryck like him. Birds of a feather…
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Not a surprise that you are a fan of a pryck like him. Birds of a feather…
Your leftist tears are delicious.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for acknowledging that this has nothing to do with laws or morals or ethics. For you morons it's all about owning the Libs.

It is truly a shame that you are entirely incapable of independent thought.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Thanks for acknowledging that this has nothing to do with laws or morals or ethics. For you morons it's all about owning the Libs.

It is truly a shame that you are entirely incapable of independent thought.
This isn't about owning libs, only you.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cool story, bro. You own nothing on this board other than the well earned title of most ignored RWNJ.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Thanks for acknowledging that this has nothing to do with laws or morals or ethics. For you morons it's all about owning the Libs.

It is truly a shame that you are entirely incapable of independent thought.

This is why I know that BearFarce never attended CAL.
He is incapable of independent thought.

He's glued to Faux News 24/7
Just a parrot.

BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

AunBear89 said:

Thanks for acknowledging that this has nothing to do with laws or morals or ethics. For you morons it's all about owning the Libs.

It is truly a shame that you are entirely incapable of independent thought.

This is why I know that BearFarce never attended CAL.
He is incapable of independent thought.

He's glued to Faux News 24/7
Just a parrot.

Everything except for rigged and stolen elections which Fox News stays away from, right?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Current SCOTUS continues to perpetuate the greatest hoax upon the American people.
Let's be honest here.

The framers of our Constitution sought to bolster a "well regulated militia"

In a 1955 memo, Jack Basil, the NRA's constitutional authority, wrote, "From all the direct and indirect evidence, the Second Amendment appears to apply to a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms."

Then, late in the 20th century, after members voted in new militant leadership, the NRA erased from memory its prior findings to reinvent the Second Amendment and distort its meaning to claim a virtually unlimited right to keep and bear private arms.

Talk about a public relations coup in the history of the United States.
The NRA literally marketed a false, alternative history of guns and gun control in America.
Propagated mainly by attorneys with ties to the gun lobby.



It's all going to mean a marked increase in death via gun.

20 years hence, stats will show the story
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they ever impose these favorable conceal carry laws on California, it is going to be real interesting for the police to pat down suspected criminals. When they feel the piece, the presumption is going to be it is legal. What happens next?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Current SCOTUS continues to perpetuate the greatest hoax upon the American people.
Let's be honest here.

The framers of our Constitution sought to bolster a "well regulated militia"

In a 1955 memo, Jack Basil, the NRA's constitutional authority, wrote, "From all the direct and indirect evidence, the Second Amendment appears to apply to a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms."

Then, late in the 20th century, after members voted in new militant leadership, the NRA erased from memory its prior findings to reinvent the Second Amendment and distort its meaning to claim a virtually unlimited right to keep and bear private arms.

Talk about a public relations coup in the history of the United States.
The NRA literally marketed a false, alternative history of guns and gun control in America.
Propagated mainly by attorneys with ties to the gun lobby.

You have repeated this line about a thousand times today. That does not make it true. I don't care to get into a debate about it but you do know there's a whole other body of work and line of reasoning to the opposite conclusion, including but not limited to the Heller decision.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

I don't care to get into a debate about it but you do know there's a whole other body of work and line of reasoning to the opposite conclusion, including but not limited to the Heller decision.


Yes, Im aware of Heller.
Just like you're aware of "Trigger Laws" in regards to Roe v Wade, right?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.