are the courts now useless?

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
The supposed job of the courts is to apply the written law to the text of the constitution and then allow to stand a conviction of those laws, or overturn the conviction and release the defendant. Another function is to hear and apply redress of grievances against the government for unconstitutional violations of the rights of that person, so why do we accept the courts failure to do its job?

case in point, It is illegal in its entirety to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Wisconsin, unless you are a certified law enforcement officer(hooray, another 'only one' exemption). Therefore, the only legal way to carry a weapon for self defense is to carry it openly. So how does law enforcement get to arrest someone for disorderly conduct, when all that person did was peacably exercise their right to keep and bear arms according to the state constitution?

the answer is to bring suit against the officers to a judge appointed by a democrat.

In the case of Gonzalez v. city of west milwaukee, judge Adelman shielded the city and officers from liability for arresting Gonzalez for disorderly conduct, when no crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed, simply because carrying a gun in the open caused a disturbance by frightening people.

So now, not only can one be indefinitely detained after a sentence has come to term, one can be held indefinitely without trial, one can be denied rights without due process of law, but now you can be arrested for exercising your rights and have no avenue for redress of grievances.

our justice system is a mockery of freedom.

the opinion is here.
 
I would say, that yes, the courts and the legal system are basically all a joke, especially since even the laws themselves are mostly unconstitutional to begin with and designed to enhance elite power.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No. I just hear "douuuuccchebaggggggg."
Click to expand...

so long as nigel doesn't like the constitutional issue, its ok to arrest someone for no reason

the case is a sham and an embarrassment to the legal community...this case is another nick in the 2nd amendment and for what can constitute probable cause....
 
Yurt said:
so long as nigel doesn't like the constitutional issue, its ok to arrest someone for no reason

the case is a sham and an embarrassment to the legal community...this case is another nick in the 2nd amendment and for what can constitute probable cause....
Click to expand...


We wasn't arrested for no reason. He was arrested for reasons that you disagree with.
 
NigelTufnel said:
We wasn't arrested for no reason. He was arrested for reasons that you disagree with.
Click to expand...

he broke no laws, the standard of probable cause outlined in that case is a fucking joke...it basically means anything can be disorderly

you disagree with his right to carry a gun, hence your calling him a douchebag and you being ok with limiting freedoms guaranteed by the constitution

i think protesting causes me to get frightened, hence all protesters should be arrested... :rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
he broke no laws, the standard of probable cause outlined in that case is a fucking joke...it basically means anything can be disorderly

you disagree with his right to carry a gun, hence your calling him a douchebag and you being ok with limiting freedoms guaranteed by the constitution

i think protesting causes me to get frightened, hence all protesters should be arrested... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Damo is the douchebag, but now that you mention it, the guy that felt compelled to walk into retail establishments with his gun on his hip is kind of a douchebag, too.

There is no constitutional right to walk into retail establishments with a gun on your hip. There is a constitutional right to protest.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Damo is the douchebag, but now that you mention it, the guy that felt compelled to walk into retail establishments with his gun on his hip is kind of a douchebag, too.

There is no constitutional right to walk into retail establishments with a gun on your hip. There is a constitutional right to protest.
Click to expand...

Article I, Section 25 of the wisconsin state constitution

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

so yes, there is indeed a constitutional right to walk in to a retail establishment with a gun on ones hip. That property owner also has the right to ask gun carrying patron to leave, but the police have no legal authority to arrest someone because they were peacably carrying a gun, just like they would have no legal authority to arrest somebody for wearing a miley cyrus t-shirt.

only people who would have someone arrested for doing something they didn't like, even if it was legal, are douchebags.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The supposed job of the courts is to apply the written law to the text of the constitution and then allow to stand a conviction of those laws, or overturn the conviction and release the defendant. Another function is to hear and apply redress of grievances against the government for unconstitutional violations of the rights of that person, so why do we accept the courts failure to do its job?

case in point, It is illegal in its entirety to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Wisconsin, unless you are a certified law enforcement officer(hooray, another 'only one' exemption). Therefore, the only legal way to carry a weapon for self defense is to carry it openly. So how does law enforcement get to arrest someone for disorderly conduct, when all that person did was peacably exercise their right to keep and bear arms according to the state constitution?

the answer is to bring suit against the officers to a judge appointed by a democrat.

In the case of Gonzalez v. city of west milwaukee, judge Adelman shielded the city and officers from liability for arresting Gonzalez for disorderly conduct, when no crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed, simply because carrying a gun in the open caused a disturbance by frightening people.

So now, not only can one be indefinitely detained after a sentence has come to term, one can be held indefinitely without trial, one can be denied rights without due process of law, but now you can be arrested for exercising your rights and have no avenue for redress of grievances.

our justice system is a mockery of freedom.

the opinion is here.
Click to expand...

:good4u:

That judge is a true America protector of freedom. Give him a medal of honor and a life pension.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Article I, Section 25 of the wisconsin state constitution

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

so yes, there is indeed a constitutional right to walk in to a retail establishment with a gun on ones hip. That property owner also has the right to ask gun carrying patron to leave, but the police have no legal authority to arrest someone because they were peacably carrying a gun, just like they would have no legal authority to arrest somebody for wearing a miley cyrus t-shirt.

only people who would have someone arrested for doing something they didn't like, even if it was legal, are douchebags.
Click to expand...

complete and total nigel destruction

there is nothing that prohibits him from walking in the store, he has a second amendment right to bear arms, even the DA didn't prosecute, BOTH times...

nigel just doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment, so nothing we say to him will change his mind or force him to admit he is wrong
 
Yurt said:
complete nigel pwnage

there is nothing that prohibits him from walking in the store, he has a second amendment right to bear arms, even the DA didn't prosecute, BOTH times...

nigel just doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment, so nothing we say to him will change his mind or force him to admit he is wrong
Click to expand...


Actually, I will gladly admit that I may be wrong about the Wisconsin constitution. I was referring to the US Constitution.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, I will gladly admit that I may be wrong about the Wisconsin constitution. I was referring to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
"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"

Now Nigel, please point out which part of the 2A says you cannot carry a gun?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, I will gladly admit that I may be wrong about the Wisconsin constitution. I was referring to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

the constitution does protect his right to keep and bear arms....you can carry a gun like he did, in fact like i already said, it PROTECTS your right to bear arms

you're flat out wrong to say the constitution does not protect his right in this case
 
with todays bullshit judiciary, he is in fact right, because our grand USSC has not EVER written an opinion that the right to BEAR arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Only the right to KEEP a gun in ones home for self defense. See, liberals will draw this particular amendment out to have half a dozen cases before the right to carry a gun will be acknowledged.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
with todays bullshit judiciary, he is in fact right, because our grand USSC has not EVER written an opinion that the right to BEAR arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Only the right to KEEP a gun in ones home for self defense. See, liberals will draw this particular amendment out to have half a dozen cases before the right to carry a gun will be acknowledged.
Click to expand...
The Miller decision affirms the right to carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top