Sheriffs Keeping Their Oaths

[BlueTex]

@Samm

Yes, but that does not negate the Ruling. The case before them was about short barreled shotguns which had been made illegal (without a permit) by the 1934 National Firearms Act. They ruled that the defendant (Miller) had no Constitutional right to keep and bear a short barreled shotgun because they were not common military issue weapons. They were incorrect in that reasoning (short barreled shotguns were issued and used extensively by the Army during WWI) but it was very clear that the basis for their ruling was that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the citizens right to keep and bear military arms.

Are you suggesting the NRA has been impotent since this ruling in 1939? Not one case has challenged these restrictions since 1939?

[mobulis]

@Samm

No … that is not what it means. Try again.

Yes it does, we know you guy’s won’t accept it but it does.

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@Samm

Yes, but that does not negate the Ruling. The case before them was about short barreled shotguns which had been made illegal (without a permit) by the 1934 National Firearms Act. They ruled that the defendant (Miller) had no Constitutional right to keep and bear a short barreled shotgun because they were not common military issue weapons. They were incorrect in that reasoning (short barreled shotguns were issued and used extensively by the Army during WWI) but it was very clear that the basis for their ruling was that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the citizens right to keep and bear military arms.

Are you suggesting the NRA has been impotent since this ruling in 1939? Not one case has challenged these restrictions since 1939?

I’m not suggesting anything, I’m just telling you the facts.

[Samm]

@mobulis

@Samm

No … that is not what it means. Try again.

Yes it does, we know you guy’s won’t accept it but it does.

Nope. Passing a law does not mean that the law does not infringe on a Right. In fact, when you think about it, that notion is quite absurd.

[party-free]

Yes, and Heller said no rights are unlimited, not even those protected by the constitution.

[party-free]

I already affirmed that would be the likely outcome. Thanks for reaffirming.

[party-free]

The laws they’re refusing to uphold aren’t unconstitutional any more than gun laws in the other 49 states.

[party-free]

According to Sneaky, even that is a violation of the constitution.

[BlueTex]

@Samm

I’m not suggesting anything, I’m just telling you the facts.

The facts appear to be that the requirements still stand… Why is that? Seems to me it would be easy to amend the NFA and include any number of firearms types that we would like…

[party-free]

Pardon me. Purchasing. One of the sticking points of the new WA law that is “unconstitutional” is an increase in the purchase age.

[party-free]

The courts declared that, as is their constitutionally granted power.

[party-free]

@Samm

Don’t accuse others of calling you a liar when they didn’t. He said it was dishonest of you to attribute things to him that he never said … which you did.

Saying someone was being dishonest is calling them a liar.

I paraphrased what I interpreted what he said to mean. He had a chance to tell me how my interpretation was incorrect-instead, he called me dishonest, which means he believes I am a liar.

That is against the ToS. Both accusing someone of dishonesty/lying has been explicitly banned by mods. We’ve been told this directly.

[WuWei]

The Constitution does not grant “the courts” the power to violate the Constitution.

The Constitution does not even grant “the courts” the power to “interpret” the Constitution.

“The courts” gave themselves that power and you submitted.

[BlueTex]

@WuWei

The Constitution does not grant “the courts” the power to violate the Constitution.

The Constitution does not even grant “the courts” the power to “interpret” the Constitution.

“The courts” gave themselves that power and you submitted.

And the courts still enforce this power despite your objections…

[WuWei]

Until The Revolution.

You lose.

[mobulis]

@WuWei

The Constitution does not grant “the courts” the power to violate the Constitution.

The Constitution does not even grant “the courts” the power to “interpret” the Constitution.

“The courts” gave themselves that power and you submitted.

Then who does “interpret” the Constitution?

[party-free]

Apparently sheriffs. Because apparently oaths of office override the constitution or something.

[BlueTex]

@WuWei

Until The Revolution.

You lose.

Revolutions are the province of the young… good luck

[WuWei]

It’s in English.

[WuWei]

You don’t know your history, sir.