Federal judge rules Oregon’s tough new gun law is constitutional

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored2008, the JPP Forum idiot is hard at work, posting foolish nonsense.

Trumpette, as always, has no idea what the subject is, has nothing to add, but blathers out idiocy anyway.

Here's the deal - because you are a sock of Douche Duck, you're going to be stupid. A sock can't be smarter than the person behind it.

 

[Noking]

Trumpette, as always, has no idea what the subject is, has nothing to add, but blathers our idiocy anyway.

Here's the deal - because you are a sock of Douche Duck, you're going to be stupid. A sock can't be smarter than the person behind it.

The usual pointless and frivolous nonsense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The usual pointless and frivolous nonsense.

You offer nothing else. None of the socks you slither around in do.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Directly on topic. The ONLY way you Marxists can get what you want is if you defeat we decent Americans in a civil war.

You want to take "AR15's" away from the law abiding, because they have plastic, and plastic is deadly. What about a 30-30? Or a .30-06? The Springfield bolt action is one of the most deadly "weapons of war" in history. For kills per trigger pulls, nothing even comes close.

But, plastic is scary. You need to ban plastic.

Off topic

 

[martin]

Hardly;

{[FONT="]King James I stated the official position of the English governing elite on gun ownership succinctly. When it was suggested that more of England's subjects should enjoy the right to hunt and own firearms, James responded that “it is not fit that clowns should have these sports.”}

[/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/abs/gun-laws-in-early-america-the-regulation-of-firearms-ownership-16071794/9CE096F99BAB0B2817D8723B4182EED3"]Gun Laws in Early America: The Regulation of Firearms Ownership, 1607–1794 | Law and History Review | Cambridge Core[/URL]

The British royalty was no different than the democrats are today, arms are reserved for the elite.

There is what the king said and the following century there is the French Indian War, in which New England militiamen were self armed. They were still self armed ten plus years after that along the road from Concord back to Boston where both they and their gunned down British regulars paid a price for a law that had created a universal draft of able bodied men, mandating them to provide their own weapons.

 

[zymurgy]

UC Berkeley School of Law

might as well frame a cracker jack box prize

 

[Into the Night]

If you have the brass, the dies, and the primers.

Brass is easy to get. You can make your own dies with the same equipment used to make the gun, and primer powder and shell powder is easy to make.

 

[Into the Night]

A lower court ruling is where such things begin.

Such thing as discarding the Constitution, like what happened in this case?

 

[Into the Night]

It is not "already decided". If it were then this law would not be supported by this judge. Even you understand it by stating the Constitution will prevail. I agree, I think the SCOTUS will decide to hear this case because of this ruling.

It is already decided. NO judge has any authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

I disagree.

The Constitution is clear. The Oregon legislature and this Obama judge are blatantly violating the Constitution. The high court will rectify the situation.

There already is. It's called treason.

Drifting a bit, would you support the idea of "Contempt of Constitution" as a potential penalty for those who deliberately and maliciously craft legislation to thwart and controvert the Constitution?

There already is. It's called treason.

One flaw I see in our system of jurisprudence is that there is no penalty for those who deliberately try to pervert our Constitution.

The penalty for treason is severe. It also is justification for impeaching said judge or government officer (including the President).

There is nothing to keep those like the Oregon legislature from repeatedly passing laws they know are unconstitutional in hopes one will stick.

There certainly is. Impeachment and criminal trial and conviction.

I view this as no different than an attorney who would introduce falsified documents in a court - an act of contempt meant to undermine the rule of law.

No, it's worse. It is intentionally attempting to overthrow the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think it makes it to SCOTUS. the 9th circuit, while absolutely liberal, KNOWS that this gets overturned if it goes there. The 9th will overturn this and send it back with directions to re-evaluate with the bruen decision.

That this district judge took 122 pages to attempt to explain her obvious idiocy shows she has no business being on the bench

She certainly doesn't. What she has done is commit an impeachable act.

 

[Into the Night]

If you mean the Lexington not far from the Concord you've heard about since you were a child your reference is several hundred miles in error. Moreover, the male residents of Lexington, Mass did have guns and a dozen or so had muskets with them on the green when the British soldiers arrived and many other men from there and surrounding towns fought the British with guns that night. The armed militias throughout the Colonies were made up of ordinary armed male residents.

No. I mean the Battle of Lexington. Concord is just an extension of that same battle. Six miles is not 'hundreds of miles'. The British lost.

And you have take away those colonial guns, just as the British tried to do.

 

[Into the Night]

there is already a remedy for this and it's called jury nullification. If the legislature of a state, or congress, makes a law that we see OBVIOUSLY violates the Constitution, we the people can always acquit.

And even fight back.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly, the British tried to disarm the citizens.

Tyrants don't like armed citizens.

He has his geography all fucked up. Lexington and Concord are six miles from each other. The Battle of Lexington is also the Battle of Concord. The British lost that battle.

 

[Into the Night]

That is not a remedy.

It in no way punishes those who maliciously pass legislation in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. We can acquit the accused, but this will in no way constrain the legislature from contemptuously perverting the law of the land.

Biden is in contempt of the Supreme Court, completely ignoring constitutional rulings against him. This is treason. There is no other word for it.

 

[Into the Night]

Until things went awry the British very much did like that male citizens of the Colonies were very often armed. Colonists fought hand in hand with the British against both the French and the Indians.

Blatant lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Too many American liberals are OK with the ridiculous UK guns laws.

They are obviously paranoid on the subject of firearms, and we needn't be emulating another nation's psychosis,
even if they are significantly advanced of us on virtually every other social issue [like health care and education].

Frankly, I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep if every privately owned AR-15 type assault weapon in the nation
were confiscated without financial compensation
and if anyone who protested the confiscation were shot dead on the spot.

I can't come up with a legal argument for doing that
nor even an argument for what would make it fair--
I doubt such argument exists--
but I still wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over it
because we're dealing useless cracker assholes anyway.

Nevertheless, too many liberals would be perfectly ok with a virtually complete ban on civilian ownership of all firearms
and the fuckwit reichtards use that as fuel
to claim that that is what the Democratic Party officially wants to do.

Given the great tract of real estate,
America would be a truly grand nation
if only we had a few citizens with functioning brains.

I loathe conservative Middle American Republican and Libertarian values
but I also sadly lament
how sissified so many of the more intelligent cosmopolitan people have become.

What the fuck happened to this nation?
Is it still salvageable even with partition?

Unconstitutional. War mongering.

 

[Into the Night]

It's impossible to disarm America!

Correct. There are about 465 million guns in private hands in America. Most of those people know how to use them too. And they will, should some fucktwit from the government come and try to take their guns.
AND there are lot of Americans that know how to make guns, and make the ammunition for them. There are quite a few that know how to make the primers and powder as well.

 

[Into the Night]

not directly, no. But what the people can do is be aware of it and then vote in to office people who WILL hold them accountable..............

Already happening. There are now 25 States that have finally wised up and no longer require a permit to carry a gun, even a concealed gun.

And each year more States are added.

 

[Into the Night]

Lets go ahead and make all guns illegal to American citizens!
That would work just about as good as Alcohol Prohibition!
America is a gun junkie and no law ,no restrictions will change that!

Alcohol prohibition occurred due to a constitutional amendment. It was repealed a short time later as people discovered all banning alcohol does is create organized crime.
Just like Johnson's War on Drugs (a total failure).

If people are going to fuck themselves up, they are going to fuck themselves up. At the very least, you can starve organized crime of a revenue stream and go after the dealers of this shit.

Legalize the use of drugs (you can't control it anyway). Go after the dealers instead and use HARSH penalties.