- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:02 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I get it now. You just don't understand what you are reading. The case is saying the Massachusetts courts were wrong and that heller allows for ownership of the stun gun. It was decided unanimously. That is a huge blow to the "point" you are trying to make and is on point.
Does frustration affect your reading comprehension?
I said that was a post from Wiki. I also included the Wiki footnotes.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:05 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Says the guy who doesn't understand the case he just posted.
Says the DUI lawyer.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:05 pm to texridder
As a law student who reads court cases basically everyday, I would caution you against using Wikipedia to discuss a case. You can easily lose the context of said case.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:07 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
I would caution you against using Wikipedia to discuss a case.
he actually used the term:
"assualt-type weapons"
you think he goes deeper than Wikipedia?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:08 pm to texridder
quote:
I was quoting from the 4th Circuit.
From which page of the 4th Circuit's opinion? Your quote said "The Heller Court said, ..."
So either you are quoting Heller out of context or the 4th Circuit quoted Heller out of context. Either way, you're being deceptive.
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:09 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
As a law student who reads court cases basically everyday, I would caution you against using Wikipedia to discuss a case. You can easily lose the context of said case.
For sure. But I can't read every Supreme Court case someone posts. They don't exactly fit on a post card.
I posted the Wiki on it with the footnotes in case someone wants to follow up.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:10 pm to texridder
quote:
Maryland law enforcement officials could not identify a single case in which a Marylander had used a assault-style rifle or shotgun, or needed to fire more than 10 rounds, to defend him/herself
LOL
I suppose then that either:
1. Maryland law enforcement officials are all out of state residents -or-
2. The failed to look in their own case files.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:11 pm to texridder
quote:no such right. So, if a court held that, the judge was an imbecile.
right of self-defense protected by the Constitution
quote:
states and municipalities have legitimate reasons to ban AR-15-style weapons because of the dangers they pose, to schools, innocent bystanders and police
quote:Well this is just silly.
For the 4th Circuit judges in the Maryland case, the question came down to whether assault-type weapons were necessary for self-defense and whether the government has a legitimate interest in regulating them.
The constitution doesn't grant me the right to self defense. It grants me the right to bear arms.
This is nothing but an attempt at bootstrapping by changing the "right" being discussed.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:11 pm to texridder
quote:
Says the DUI lawyer.
Not sure where the insult is here. There are some mighty fine prosecutors out there. Don't know why you would want to denigrate them. When I practiced I was a litigator in tax court. If you want to insult me for having practiced law, at least get the field correct.
I don't practice anymore. I started and run a few companies that allow me to semi-retire. I'm always hiring, if you are looking for work.
ETA: also...you still don't have a grasp on what the case you quoted from wiki means.
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:13 pm to Centinel
quote:
What can an M-16 do that AR-15 can't?
Full auto(at least the A1)
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:15 pm to CptBengal
quote:
he actually used the term:
"assault-type weapons"
I used that term because the 4th circuit did not define assault weapons, per se, or I would have used the definition in the opinion.
I said that was a term I was using and that it was not used in he case 3 times. This will be the 4th.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:17 pm to texridder
Top two are ghost assault cop killer guns and the bottom is a legal, low power hunting rifle.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:17 pm to texridder
quote:
For sure. But I can't read every Supreme Court case someone posts. They don't exactly fit on a post card.
I posted the Wiki on it with the footnotes in case someone wants to follow up.
Busted for a lack of candor. Gee, I wonder how much this creeps into your practice. Probably an investigation in your near future.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:18 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
Full auto(at least the A1)
I wanted texridder to answer that. But he never did, which is not surprising.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:19 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
your practice
Texridder is not a lawyer. I am confident of that.
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:21 pm to texridder
quote:
I used that term because the 4th circuit did not define assault weapons, per se, or I would have used the definition in the opinion.
so you made up your own term?
fricking imbecile.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:26 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
Busted for a lack of candor. Gee, I wonder how much this creeps into your practice. Probably an investigation in your near future.
I said in my post that I was posting from Wiki and including the footnotes.
Don't try so hard.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:31 pm to BBONDS25
As someone who has some experience in constitutional appeals, at least in state court, the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in McDonald vs. City of Chicago is important because it deemed the right to bear arms to be incorporated against the states by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, thus making it a fundamental right and subject to strict scrutiny.
The strict scrutiny aspect is extremely important because any subsequent statute attempting to ban arms will have to not only narrowly tailored, it will also have to be the least restrictive means available to achieve the compelling state interest. This is such a high burden to meet I can't see any outright ban or age increase meeting constitutional muster.
The strict scrutiny aspect is extremely important because any subsequent statute attempting to ban arms will have to not only narrowly tailored, it will also have to be the least restrictive means available to achieve the compelling state interest. This is such a high burden to meet I can't see any outright ban or age increase meeting constitutional muster.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:31 pm to CptBengal
quote:
so you made up your own term?
fricking imbecile.
The case actually used the description -- assault like.
But I thought if I used that nebulous a term, nitwits on here who don't have anything to say, but like to think posting an emoji is somehow clever, might seize on that because it was vague.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News