Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10th Circuit court rules on Open carry.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post

    Anyone that believes felons should be able to carry firearms suffers from a severe lack of reality. It is the US Supreme Court justices who sit in the highest court of the land who just happen to decide how the 2nd Amendment (among many others) should be interpreted from month to month. It is hundreds of other judges and justices on the local and federal level that also find no problem with gun regulation for the safety of the greater good. .



    p.s.s. Don't be sorry for your attempted insults. I deal with people with your attitude every day, and by the way, the gun laws are not going anywhere.
    First off, we had a PRESIDENT who was a felon....William Jefferson Clinton.

    Second....gun laws ARE going away, more so at the state and local level than the federal level, but they ARE going away. Every LOCAL gun ordnance in Ohio evaporated over night when state wide preemption on firearms laws took effect...thats probably tens of thousands of gunlaws, null and void overnight. And hundreds of thousands of Ohioans are going forth legally armed for the first time in my lifetime....again contrary to the gun banners wishes...

    And third, LEO can carry a gun pretty much anywhere in the USA now, even if state or local law makers do not want them to...........again contrary to the gun banners wishes.....

    sounds like the anti gun cause is a dead man walking.

    Bill
    Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
      I go with the idea that the Constitution is continually intepreted to the best of our nation's ability as our society evolves for the greater good of everyone involved. I like to think that we have some pretty smart people in the right positions to make that possible. It's obvious that the larger majority of the US does not feel comfortable with people toting guns to their kids soccer games or to establishments that serve alcohol. To call these folks "sheep," like they're a bunch of scared drones is ridiculous; and it gets under my skin whenever the big gun advocates imply such. I guess a "living" Constitution is one way to look at it. I don't think that "the right to bear arms" means that anyone should be able to carry a gun at anytime, any way they want. SCOTUS agrees, hence the restrictions federally and the fact that they also allow states to place their own restrictions on firearm possession/carry. Obviously the states shouldn't go overboard, as DC attempted to do (which was shot down), but overall state restrictions are very similar with a few exceptions. Those states that prohibit concealed carry but allow open carry should have their heads examined, but that's my opinion.
      Well you and I will disagree on this one. I think the framers really had it together and the Constitution is not a living document. They provided a means to change it and it wasn't through the courts.

      Comment


      • $21,000 is "go away" money....city probably saved a ton not having to pay to defend the suit....obviously the plaintiff's attorney didn't think the suit was worth much.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
          $21,000 is "go away" money....city probably saved a ton not having to pay to defend the suit....obviously the plaintiff's attorney didn't think the suit was worth much.
          And the next time, the police will have the theater manager tell the guy to leave, and arrest him for trespassing if he refuses.
          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Proving once again that you get what you ask for. Many people forget that government "of the People and by the People" means the citizenry eventually gets what they want. And frightening "the People" with OC will lead "the People" to demand changes in firearms laws.

            Comment


            • This doesn't quite jibe with your description, shelbyfan. The article does not refer to any jury trial, and states:
              Attorney Jamie Sullivan, who represented the city and Officer McColley in the case, defended the conduct of police in the case, even though he said officers knew St. John hadn't violated any law, the Daily News said.

              "It seems that it might be reasonable conduct to me," Sullivan said. "If my daughter were in a theater, a guy had a loaded gun and people were complaining about it, then it might be a good idea to have the police at least talk to him."

              Sullivan also said he believes police officers will continue to check on calls from theater managers about people with a gun in a theater, the Daily News said.

              http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/ab...-gun-suit.html
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Shelbyfan....I guess you missed the part where the Plaintiff's attorney agrees that the city admitted no liability. This case only relates to the action of the particular officers to the particular plaintiff. Another case in the same District on basically the same fact pattern could be decided entirely differently.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shelbyfan
                  they had summary judgment, after this it would have been handed to a jury and they would have decided judgment for the deprivation of rights under color of no law :P
                  Actually, if you read the opinion you will find that there was only partial summary judgment. Liability on two of the fourt claims had to be tried to a jury (or to the court) and one of the claims was dismised. The case never made it to a jury, and had one been empaneled, it would have had to determine more than damages.

                  More importantly, there was no "consent decree." A consent decree is a form of injunction that is entered by the court pursuant to stipulation of the parties. There was nothing resembling that here -- only a monetary settlement. As the statement by the city's attorney makes clear, there was no agreement as to future conduct by the police.
                  Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                  Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                  Comment

                  MR300x250 Tablet

                  Collapse

                  What's Going On

                  Collapse

                  There are currently 4559 users online. 251 members and 4308 guests.

                  Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                  Welcome Ad

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X