texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Kmat, janeyu, NEtransplant, b0whunter1, JLMays_7467
65405 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 93,355
bill oxner 55,176
stxranchman 54,727
SnakeWrangler 46,015
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,430
BMD 41,029
Big Orn 37,484
txshntr 35,565
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics432,446
Posts6,279,879
Members65,405
Most Online16,728
Mar 25th, 2012
Print Thread
Here comes da judge #7578884 08/13/19 12:30 PM
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,286
M
mikei Online Content OP
Extreme Tracker
OP Online Content
Extreme Tracker
M
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,286
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Second Amendment bars many gun restrictions being proposed after mass shootings
19 hours ago
Judge Napolitano: Guns and personal liberty and why we have a Constitution
Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the Second Amendment and why calls to take legally-owned guns away from gun owners is not the right answer.
Last weekend's mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, have produced a flood of words about everything from gun control to mental illness to white nationalism. Most of those words have addressed the right to keep and bear arms as if it were a gift from the government. It isn't.
The Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality.
That means that the court has recognized that the framers of the Constitution did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government – state and federal – from infringing upon it.
It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks – "surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally" – to be impaired in the name of public safety.
It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.
With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety.
Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No.
Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No.
We know this because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have – or the government has.
The government? Yes, the government. That's so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people.
If you don't believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts.
Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?
In theory, all of this was known by President Trump when he addressed the nation and attributed the weekend slaughters to mental illness, the freedom to express hateful ideas on the Internet and violent video games. He should have consulted his lawyers before he spoke.
Federal law prohibits records of mental health problems, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government's databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the Internet or games played there.
Then the president condemned hate. Do you believe his condemnations? He has, after all, praised the white supremacists at Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as "good people," even though one of them pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of a young woman, and even though, as a candidate and later as president, he argued that the southwest United States was being "invaded" and "infested" by Hispanics.
That white supremacy ideology – "let's repel the Hispanic invaders because the feds won't do so" – resonates in the manifesto of the man accused of being the El Paso killer, which he published about 20 minutes before the shootings. That ideology is far more widespread than most Americans realize. The FBI recently demonstrated as much. This form of hatred of people because of their immutable characteristics breeds violence.
We know that some among us love to hate. That is their right, but they have no right to act violently beyond their perverse thoughts. And all people have the right to defend against such violence by using guns to do so.
The president also offered his support for "red flag" laws. These horrific statutes permit police or courts to seize guns from those deemed dangerous.
Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.
In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do. When the Soviets used psychiatric testimony to predict criminal behavior, President Ronald Reagan condemned it. Now, the president wants it here.
The United States is not New Zealand, where a national legislature, animated by fear and provoked by tragedy, can impair fundamental liberties by majority vote. In America, neither Congress nor the states can outlaw whatever handguns or rifles they want to outlaw or infringe upon the right to own them.
The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty – speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership – would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.
That's why we have a Constitution.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

Re: Here comes da judge [Re: mikei] #7578907 08/13/19 01:01 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,525
C
Choctaw Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
C
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,525
Quote
We know this because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have – or the government has.
The government? Yes, the government. That's so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people.


There are a few THFers who don't seem to understand this. They really don't care what happens because "I still have other guns to hunt with."

Quote
Don’t care either way. Don’t own any and sold them all when the getting was good. Would I get another? Sure but life goes on either way.


Here is a prime example of a THFer not understanding even the basic concept of the Second Amendment.

Re: Here comes da judge [Re: mikei] #7578937 08/13/19 01:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 22
T
TOM-M Offline
Light Foot
Offline
Light Foot
T
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by mikei

We know this because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have – or the government has.
The government? Yes, the government. That's so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people.


Napolitano is up to his eyeballs in crap (as much as I wish he was correct). Heller did no such thing. Or any of us could freely purchase, own and posses a current production M4A1.

Re: Here comes da judge [Re: mikei] #7578947 08/13/19 01:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 16,272
P
Pitchfork Predator Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
P
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 16,272
I agree many here don't "get it".

They don't understand the true meaning of liberty and unalienable human rights.......and they are too easily ready to give up rather than stand up.


Marc C. Helfrich
Retirement Planner

www.insured-wealth.com
469-323-8920
Re: Here comes da judge [Re: TOM-M] #7578956 08/13/19 01:55 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,525
C
Choctaw Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
C
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,525
Originally Posted by TOM-M
Originally Posted by mikei

We know this because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have – or the government has.
The government? Yes, the government. That's so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people.


Napolitano is up to his eyeballs in crap (as much as I wish he was correct). Heller did no such thing. Or any of us could freely purchase, own and posses a current production M4A1.


Heller states that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual's right to bear arms as opposed to organized militias. This right pertains to any lawful purpose including self defense within the home. However, the 2nd Amendment itself was created for the protection against a tyrannical government.

Re: Here comes da judge [Re: Choctaw] #7578991 08/13/19 02:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 22
T
TOM-M Offline
Light Foot
Offline
Light Foot
T
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Choctaw
Heller states that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual's right to bear arms as opposed to organized militias. This right pertains to any lawful purpose including self defense within the home. However, the 2nd Amendment itself was created for the protection against a tyrannical government.


Understood. Completely.

But Napolitano "stretched" that considerably.

Last edited by TOM-M; 08/13/19 02:43 PM.
Re: Here comes da judge [Re: mikei] #7579317 08/13/19 10:22 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 93,355
dogcatcher Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 93,355
The goverment has restricted our rights to own machine guns and sawed shotguns since 1934. That has been in out of the courts and those restrictions have stood the tests of time. The Clinton, it also went through courts several trips. Both of these are proof that the judge is blowing some smoke up his own tailpipe.

Another issue that is more relevant is that neither were effective in stopping the mass shootings or the thousands of killings done every year in this country. I am in Abilene, we have already had 3 murders and an unknown amount of shooting.


Combat Infantryman, the ultimate hunter where the prey shoots back.
_____________"Illegitimus non carborundum est"_______________



Re: Here comes da judge [Re: dogcatcher] #7579702 08/14/19 12:52 PM
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 46
R
rolyat.nosaj Online Content
Light Foot
Online Content
Light Foot
R
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by dogcatcher
The goverment has restricted our rights to own machine guns and sawed shotguns since 1934. That has been in out of the courts and those restrictions have stood the tests of time. The Clinton, it also went through courts several trips. Both of these are proof that the judge is blowing some smoke up his own tailpipe.

Another issue that is more relevant is that neither were effective in stopping the mass shootings or the thousands of killings done every year in this country. I am in Abilene, we have already had 3 murders and an unknown amount of shooting.



I grew up in the Abilene area and still know lots of folks over there and still have relatives there. That place has become an infestation of meth, crime and filth. I'm surprised 3 murders is all you have so far.

Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3