Figong
Well-Known Member
Which is somewhat messed up still, as they will not approve import of RPGs even with Class 3.
Any updates on MMJ and Guns
- Thread starter DaleRoberts
- Start date
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
double tap
sorry
sorry
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
It is fucked up. You still need a CPL to carry concealed in the places listed in MCL 28.425o, or openly in the places listed in MCL 750.234d, MCL 750.237a, and MCL 750.231a.
Figong
Well-Known Member
Is why I was considering getting PI qualification, just to expand the # of places I could carry concealed (namely a good bit on the list of gun-free zones) Unless/until the Michigan legislature opens that up with additional training as they were considering late fall of last year.
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
SB 59. I agree. Senator Green has proposed a bill, SB 0213, which would allow certain places to opt out, but no longer prohibits OC, and it doesnt have the extra training requirement.
You can still OC in those areas however, as the law was struck down by Snyder, after cowering to paranoid delusional people like UncleFuck.
You can still OC in those areas however, as the law was struck down by Snyder, after cowering to paranoid delusional people like UncleFuck.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
at least i have a solid grasp on history, including judicial review, heller v DC, and the like.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
Listen UncleBuck no matter how many times you repeat the same bullshit it will never be true. Your subjective opinion is so ignorant as to deem you incapable of knowing any objective truths. You are a complete and utter fool intent on breeding those just like you. When you collect your masses of idiots to enforce your bullshit social policies, do me a favor and stop here first!
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;2GsmUzSBaUQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ[/video]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
don't tell that to me, tell that to scalia, roberts, alito, and thomas AND kennedy.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.*54–56.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
suck on that reality, THEWOMAN13.
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes it is. Read it.
Yes it is. Read it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
way to display the extent of your reading comprehension. too bad that the very conservative roberts court just recently said that many restrictions are perfectly consistent with the second amendment.
you said you've been studying this for years. i'd be pretty embarrassed if i were you.
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
The court was wrong. I would tell them the same thing. Read it.
The right of the people. ---> citizens
a well regulated militia -------> regulated means organized, one segment is the people at large
being necessary to the security of the free state ------> security is always necessary
To keep --------> to own
and bear -----> to carry
arms -------> things recognizable as weapons
shall not --------> shall not
be infringed ----------> breached, encroached, limited, banned
The right of the people. ---> citizens
a well regulated militia -------> regulated means organized, one segment is the people at large
being necessary to the security of the free state ------> security is always necessary
To keep --------> to own
and bear -----> to carry
arms -------> things recognizable as weapons
shall not --------> shall not
be infringed ----------> breached, encroached, limited, banned
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
for those who mistakenly think that the A2 is limited to them.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, the court is right. it's called judicial review. even the most conservative justices on a conservative court say so.
marbury versus madison, sweetheart. learn basic history and stop making an ass out of yourself, sally.
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
It's called judicial activism, and is a violation of the oath that they took to support the constitution when they took the job. Oh, the oath, that's right, to support and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Pesky thing. You cannot swear an oath to something like the constitution, then turn around and change its meaning. You can't have it both ways. Those domestic enemies included judicial activists, right along with an American citizen with a car bomb.
What you're missing, is that by your own definition, a gun nut could be sworn into the SCOTUS seat, and "interperate" the second amendment to be exactly as the people who wrote it. All you have to do, is look at the other writings and sayings of the authors, to find the inconsistencies in your argument that it does not mean what was written.
What you're missing, is that by your own definition, a gun nut could be sworn into the SCOTUS seat, and "interperate" the second amendment to be exactly as the people who wrote it. All you have to do, is look at the other writings and sayings of the authors, to find the inconsistencies in your argument that it does not mean what was written.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol. judicial activism from justices who consider the constitution to be dead.
that's just funny.
some day, you'll take 11th grade civics and understand how retarded you sound right now.
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
If they believe that the constitution is dead, then why did they swear an oath to it? That assumption also pokes holes in your previous arguments altogether.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
OMFG. find the nearest blunt object and smash your face into it. immediately.
dead constitution versus living constitution. seeing the constitution as dead rather than living means you interpret as it was written by the founding fathers themselves.
seeing the constitution as a living document means you interpret it as it might apply now, centuries after the founding fathers died and we went from an agrarian society to a non-agrarian society.
someone who sees the constitution as dead isn't going to get accused of judicial activism, unless it's by someone like you who is out of his element altogether.
some people might say that when the founding fathers wrote it, "being necessary to the security of a free state" clearly refers to keeping king george at bay, and since we have a standing army now to protect us, there is no right of the people to carry arms. that's only partially my belief (the first part), but perhaps some of that will penetrate your thick skull.
for someone who claims to have studied this for years, i would be completely embarrassed to be you at this point.*
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Wow buck you made a point without making a gay joke! BRAVO!
It was not only to keep king george at bay, but to keep the people empowered to keep another king type figure from taking power in america.
It was not only to keep king george at bay, but to keep the people empowered to keep another king type figure from taking power in america.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
at the time it was penned, yes, the latter reason was still valid.
nowadays, not so much.
back then, everyone pretty much had the same "arms". bayonets, cannon balls, muskets, rickety wooden ships, and the like. now, we have nuclear bombs, neutron bombs, chemical warfare, fully automatic machine guns, panzer tanks, and so much more.
if the need ever arises to overthrow a tyrant, no one is going to bother to do so in a constitutional fashion. it's not constitutional for citizens to own atomic bombs, but we'd get them from some eastern bloc shit hole if the need arose.
prodigaysun* would have a conniption if he ever heard sotomayor's take on the second. we'll spare him for now.
*this satisfies the need for a gay joke