High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices [W:76]

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Consider ALL of you on notice. The baiting, mocking, personal comments, and trolling stops now. If not, thread bans and/or infractions will be issued. I hope that's clear.

 

[Crimefree]

NO............Then can it be said you do not believe in the rule of law? I would proffer........NO

You seem to misunderstand the law or are being deliberately ignorant of the laws which "prevent" one going postal and committing crimes. Is a person is willing to commit murder going to obey a gun law? Please explain why you think they will obey a gun law. Make this as detailed as possible to show the principle you are going to divulge to us as reason for such a law,

If you did you would know SCOTUS Heller majority decision written by Scalia states the government has the right/duty to enact reasonable gun use and ownership requirements...........

First who the heck is Scalia and who appointed him above the constitution? Can you find those weasel words in the constitution? Can you find any hope they may exist in the words "shall not be infringed". Your response is needed here.

So it would seem.......given what you say.........you do not believe in our country's tradition of the rule of law........

If so.......what then do you believe in?

Emotional appeals are of no use here, desist.

 

[OpportunityCost]

U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws | Reuters
U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws


“A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered a lower court judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging gun control laws approved by Colorado in the wake of a movie theater massacre in a Denver suburb, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.

The measures, which passed the Colorado legislature and were signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, in 2013 were considered a victory by gun-control activists in a state where gun ownership is treasured.

The legislation was prompted by the July 2012 shooting rampage at a midnight shooting of a "Batman" movie in Aurora that killed 12 people and the slaying later that year of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut.

The laws, which banned ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds and required universal background checks for gun buyers, prompted a fierce backlash from critics that led to voters recalling two key Democratic members of the state legislature….


The court is following the law as defined by Heller…………….

Reasonable gun safety and control laws are appropriate and do not violate 2nd Amendment…………

Now as understand it……… You have an issue with this as the law of the land!

My primary point regarding the employment contract and the NDA is that if you agree to restrictions on the 2nd, you would have no problems with restrictions on the 1st.

Shifting back to the Heller decision, the bans on Courthouses are upheld because of the extra threat where criminal sentencing is occurring. That is people are being sentenced to lose part of their lives to the justice system, its not unreasonable to assume that a weapon in that environment would be deadly.

My argument would be there is no overriding safety concern in a post office that makes it different from any other work environment. Further, the duty of care to employees in freedom is higher for the federal government than it is for instance, an office job.

My secondary argument is that the ban will disarm honest bearers and will not deter the crimes in question as they will simply ignore the ban if they are going to commit murder and attempted murder anyway. While other courts have argued that the narrow government focus doesn't have to be effective to be served, SCOTUS has argued for a stricter scrutiny of the government goals and aims and efficacy must be observed to infringe upon rights.

My tertiary argument is the first time there is a shooting in a Colorado post office, we the people can get ready for a class action civil suit for disarming everyone in that post office.

 

[BretJ]

Anything else?

Consider being able to support an opinion. You made a pretty goofy comment in a debate forum and then can't handle getting called out on it? Pretty weak stuff. Not exactly an admirable character trait....

 

[imyoda]

Consider being able to support an opinion. You made a pretty goofy comment in a debate forum and then can't handle getting called out on it? Pretty weak stuff. Not exactly an admirable character trait....

I'm crushed............

 

[BretJ]

I'm crushed............

Once you get out of high school and live in the real world, you will get over it.

 

[imyoda]

Once you get out of high school and live in the real world, you will get over it.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're not too good at nasty or sarcastic...............maybe you need some refresher courses in Basic Repulsive

 

[Crimefree]

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're not too good at nasty or sarcastic...............maybe you need some refresher courses in Basic Repulsive

When you have finished playing avoidance go back and answer my post line by line. You asked for debate now debate. Let us see how good you are at debating and not avoiding.

 

[BretJ]

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're not too good at nasty or sarcastic...............maybe you need some refresher courses in Basic Repulsive

No intention of being nasty or sarcastic. Just stating an opinion. I can explain and support it as well. If you want me to, I can explain how I came to that opinion if you have time before you go to your algebra class.

 

[imyoda]

When you have finished playing avoidance go back and answer my post line by line. You asked for debate now debate. Let us see how good you are at debating and not avoiding.

OK.........You go first.........

 

[imyoda]

No intention of being nasty or sarcastic. Just stating an opinion. I can explain and support it as well. If you want me to, I can explain how I came to that opinion if you have time before you go to your algebra class.

Nice try at nasty.....still lacking

BTW

Did you read the news report YET?

 

[BretJ]

Nice try at nasty.....still lacking

BTW

Did you read the news report YET?

Read it when first posted. What does it have to do with supporting your "it will go a long way..." statement/opinion?

 

[RenoCon]

In any event..........all you need to do to be safe.............Leave your gun at home when going to the Post Office..................then there's no worry about getting arrested

Sentences you did not finish: "...and are going through the effort of taking it to a location where you feel the need to carry..."

(BTW, I think your period key is sticking)

 

[Ntharotep]

lets think your argument through

You're a gangbanger

that means you are currently engaged in illegal gang activity

if you are intending to shoot a judge, do you think a sign saying NO GUNS is going to stop you?

No. I think the metal detectors and guards you have to go through on the first floor before ever getting to the third floor is going to stop you.
Detectors that there would be no need for if you can bring anything you want into a courthouse.
I'm also for no weapons on planes as crazy as that is I'm sure.

 

[TOG 6]

If you did you would know SCOTUS Heller majority decision written by Scalia states the government has the right/duty to enact reasonable gun use and ownership requirements...........

Nothing in Heller says this.
I defy you to cite the text to this effect.

 

[Casper]

U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws | Reuters
U.S. court rejects challenge to Colorado gun control laws


“A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered a lower court judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging gun control laws approved by Colorado in the wake of a movie theater massacre in a Denver suburb, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.

The measures, which passed the Colorado legislature and were signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, in 2013 were considered a victory by gun-control activists in a state where gun ownership is treasured.

The legislation was prompted by the July 2012 shooting rampage at a midnight shooting of a "Batman" movie in Aurora that killed 12 people and the slaying later that year of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut.

The laws, which banned ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds and required universal background checks for gun buyers, prompted a fierce backlash from critics that led to voters recalling two key Democratic members of the state legislature….


The court is following the law as defined by Heller…………….

Reasonable gun safety and control laws are appropriate and do not violate 2nd Amendment…………

Now as understand it……… You have an issue with this as the law of the land!

Now understand this: The Columbine Colorado mass murders happened while AR's were banned and Colorado had some of the toughest gun laws in the Nation. Laws only work with those willing to follow them and do not deter anyone bent on committing acts of mass murder. Welcome to Reality.

 

[imyoda]

Read it when first posted. What does it have to do with supporting your "it will go a long way..." statement/opinion?

I guess it did not take.........reread it......this time for meaning

 

[imyoda]

Sentences you did not finish: "...and are going through the effort of taking it to a location where you feel the need to carry..."

(BTW, I think your period key is sticking)

Give it up.............So if you do not want to be arrested......when you go to the PO.............leave your hand cannon at home

 

[imyoda]

Nothing in Heller says this.
I defy you to cite the text to this effect.

Ask anyone who knows how to read SCOTUS decisions and they will disagree with your interpretation of meaning.


BTW

Yall have become tiring.........Have a nice life

 

[imyoda]

Now understand this: The Columbine Colorado mass murders happened while AR's were banned and Colorado had some of the toughest gun laws in the Nation. Laws only work with those willing to follow them and do not deter anyone bent on committing acts of mass murder. Welcome to Reality.

so tell me what this has to do with the price of eggs?.............you offering a non sequitur........is not an argument equal to the force of a SCOTUS decision

 

[TOG 6]

Ask anyone who knows how to read SCOTUS decisions and they will disagree with your interpretation of meaning.

Thank you for your concession, that you cannot cite the text that supports your assertion.

 

[chuckiechan]

It's just harassment of honest gun owners.

I suppose he is supposed to take it home, go pick up his mail, then go home and get his gun.

Brilliant. That will stop murders.

So the honest gun owner will put it in the center console and become an instant criminal. That really is the plan, isn't it?

 

[BretJ]

I guess it did not take.........reread it......this time for meaning

The Supreme Court won't hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots.

The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to government buildings or the parking areas that serve them.

The case involved Colorado resident Tab Bonidy, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. He sought a court order striking down the regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.

The Obama administration argued that the Second Amendment does not restrict laws forbidding guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

So what problems does this "go a long way" to solving?

 

[Crimefree]

It's just harassment of honest gun owners.

I suppose he is supposed to take it home, go pick up his mail, then go home and get his gun.

Brilliant. That will stop murders.

So the honest gun owner will put it in the center console and become an instant criminal. That really is the plan, isn't it?

The essence of control is to have something to hang people with. Frivolous laws are a god send.

 

[Crimefree]

so tell me what this has to do with the price of eggs?.............you offering a non sequitur........is not an argument equal to the force of a SCOTUS decision

I have news for you. The constitution is the highest law of the land.
It is not in the hands of any government court. That would have been irresponsible dereliction of the duty the founding fathers had to the people.

Your appeal to a court flounders in the face of reality.