Current Status of Heller II?

Well, this is basic stuff - usually in life, involvement will get more of a result than inaction. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply here. Arguing against that, especially in our current situation with the nation starting to pick up momentum again, would be pretty abstract and contrarian. This is not 2014 anymore; look around and recalibrate with current reality. Beyond that, appointing pro-2A judges will generally get a better result than anti judges. And we know who gets these judges appointed and who gets them approved, and what we need to do to keep that happening and better our situation for years to come. Sorry, but that's how it is. If you want to try and convince yourself that you'll get more of what you want by doing less to get there...I won't waste time arguing with that kind of position. BTW, that kind of realistic thinking did NOT lead us to this point, it started long before we were born and consisted of apathy/inaction on one side (ready to repeat that?) and radical activism and infiltration on the other. If you want to do even more, be a teacher, a journalist, a judge, a policeman, an ATF agent, a politician, etc. Inaction is not the way to succeed. It's the way to repeat history.

HP995 said:

Well, this is basic stuff - usually in life, involvement will get more of a result than inaction. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply here. Arguing against that, especially in our current situation with the nation starting to pick up momentum again, would be pretty abstract and contrarian. This is not 2014 anymore; look around and recalibrate with current reality. Beyond that, appointing pro-2A judges will generally get a better result than anti judges. And we know who gets these judges appointed and who gets them approved, and what we need to do to keep that happening and better our situation for years to come. Sorry, but that's how it is. If you want to try and convince yourself that you'll get more of what you want by doing less to get there...I won't waste time arguing with that kind of position. BTW, that kind of realistic thinking did NOT lead us to this point, it started long before we were born and consisted of apathy/inaction on one side (ready to repeat that?) and radical activism and infiltration on the other. If you want to do even more, be a teacher, a journalist, a judge, a policeman, an ATF agent, a politician, etc. Inaction is not the way to succeed. It's the way to repeat history.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Another excellent saying: When you fail to vote for the better candidate, you fail to counter/nullify someone else's vote for the poorer candidate.

And the corollary for "I'll never vote for the lesser of two evils" morons: When you fail to vote for the lesser of two evils, you fail to counter/nullify someone else's vote for the more evil candidate.

There are very few situations where doing nothing is the better option.

Put another way, choosing not to vote is like having two lawnmowers. Whether they're both great, so you say, "It doesn't really matter" or they both suck, so you say, "I'm not going to choose the lesser of two evils," you choose to do nothing and your yard becomes overgrown and you're the apathetic bane of the neighborhood.

By all means, vote! Dictatorships arise from apathy. Don't be apathetic. Don't be a mindless subject to the winds of change. We're a country "of the people, by the people, for the people," but that only applies to people who vote.

since9 said:

We're a country "of the people, by the people, for the people," but that only applies to people who vote.

Click to expand...

does it?

hammer6 said:

does it?

Click to expand...

Of course not. However, if you do not vote any complaints you may voice regarding the results of any particular election are/will be summarily ignored and classified as snowflake petulance.

since9 said:

Another excellent saying: When you fail to vote for the better candidate, you fail to counter/nullify someone else's vote for the poorer candidate.

And the corollary for "I'll never vote for the lesser of two evils" morons: When you fail to vote for the lesser of two evils, you fail to counter/nullify someone else's vote for the more evil candidate.

Click to expand...

Voting is like, in some ways, "jury nullification". If you have a bad law, poorly applied, the People have not only the right but the duty to ignore the bad law and make a judgement for "justice". We MUST vote for the "lesser of two evils" primarily to "nullify" some idiot's vote for the BAD candidate.
By voting for Trump, no matter what reservations you might have about the man, you prevented an unthinkable alternative that would have led to the end of the U.S.

OC for ME said:

Of course not. However, if you do not vote any complaints you may voice regarding the results of any particular election are/will be summarily ignored and classified as snowflake petulance.

Click to expand...

Oh I would GREATLY disagree with that. If you don't agree with any of the candidates on the ballot, your voice in "not voting" is just as loud as it is in voting for the lesser of the evils. A person who doesn't vote has no less of a right to complain than someone who always votes.

JTHunter2 said:

Voting is like, in some ways, "jury nullification". If you have a bad law, poorly applied, the People have not only the right but the duty to ignore the bad law and make a judgement for "justice". We MUST vote for the "lesser of two evils" primarily to "nullify" some idiot's vote for the BAD candidate.
By voting for Trump, no matter what reservations you might have about the man, you prevented an unthinkable alternative that would have led to the end of the U.S.

Click to expand...

wowwwwww. really? that's a stretch.

hammer6 said:

Oh I would GREATLY disagree with that. If you don't agree with any of the candidates on the ballot, your voice in "not voting" is just as loud as it is in voting for the lesser of the evils. A person who doesn't vote has no less of a right to complain than someone who always votes.

Click to expand...

I did not address voting or not voting. I did not state that you could not complain about the outcome of any particular election. You ignored my statement and addressed that which I did not address.

However, if you do not vote, any complaints you may voice regarding the results of any particular election are/will be summarily ignored and classified as snowflake petulance.

Click to expand...

since9 said:

.....By all means, vote! Dictatorships arise from apathy. Don't be apathetic. Don't be a mindless subject to the winds of change. We're a country "of the people, by the people, for the people," but that only applies to people who vote.

Click to expand...

You are living in a fantasy world. The courts have pretty well taken that all away by creating court doctrine. Qualified immunity doctrine is court created. State and federal sovereign immunity from lawsuits by citizens is court created. And, the list goes on and on.

hammer6 said:

Which has more clout: an enshrined amendment in our founding documents, or the changing opinions of some judges over time?

Click to expand...

The one that can actually put you in jail no matter what the other has to say about it.

color of law said:

You are living in a fantasy world. The courts have pretty well taken that all away by creating court doctrine.

Click to expand...

If you can't read the Constitution and identify court decisions that depart from it and even outright violate it, then it is you who are living in a fantasy world, there, color of law.

The very fact that court decisions are overturned upon appeal is prima facia evidence this occurs on a regular basis.

Courts have "established" case law that sadly, continues to dominate in many areas in direct violation of "the supreme Law of the Land," including many local, county, state, and even federal firearms laws. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' many anti-Constitutional rulings against the right of the people to keep and bear arms cries out for true justice to put them back in their place.

Historically, you have repeatedly held case law in higher esteem than legislation. That was never the intent of our legal system. Rather, long ago empire-building judges who erred in thinking it was their duty to legislate from the bench began warping legislation in seriously different directions than it was intended.

We elect our legislators to make law. That's their function. It's not the function of a judge to make law, but rather, work entirely within the bounds of what he or she has been given, beginning with our Constitution.

Qualified immunity doctrine is court created. State and federal sovereign immunity from lawsuits by citizens is court created. And, the list goes on and on.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does, ad nauseum, and to the detriment of We the People. Phooey.

since9 said:

If you can't read the Constitution and identify court decisions that depart from it and even outright violate it, then it is you who are living in a fantasy world, there, color of law.

The very fact that court decisions are overturned upon appeal is prima facia evidence this occurs on a regular basis.

Courts have "established" case law that sadly, continues to dominate in many areas in direct violation of "the supreme Law of the Land," including many local, county, state, and even federal firearms laws. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' many anti-Constitutional rulings against the right of the people to keep and bear arms cries out for true justice to put them back in their place.

Historically, you have repeatedly held case law in higher esteem than legislation. That was never the intent of our legal system. Rather, long ago empire-building judges who erred in thinking it was their duty to legislate from the bench began warping legislation in seriously different directions than it was intended.

We elect our legislators to make law. That's their function. It's not the function of a judge to make law, but rather, work entirely within the bounds of what he or she has been given, beginning with our Constitution.



Yes, it does, ad nauseum, and to the detriment of We the People. Phooey.

Click to expand...

Are you talking to me??? If you are, you are way out in left field.

color of law said:

Are you talking to me??? If you are, you are way out in left field.

Click to expand...

With ad hominem retorts like that, Constitutionalists like myself might begin to think you're one of the obstructionist judges or an accompliced [SIC] attorney trying to reinvent the wheel beyond the confines of the law.

since9 said:

With ad hominem retorts like that, Constitutionalists like myself might begin to think you're one of the obstructionist judges or an accompliced [SIC] attorney trying to reinvent the wheel beyond the confines of the law.

Click to expand...

Your statement is proof of your ignorance of my almost 11 years of posting legal commentary on this forum.

Have a nice day.

color of law said:

Your statement is proof of your ignorance of my almost 11 years of posting legal commentary on this forum.

Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaking you for someone else, which is a distinct possibility, aren't you the one where who counters Constitutional positions with case law?

since9 said:

With ad hominem retorts like that, Constitutionalists like myself might begin to think you're one of the obstructionist judges or an accompliced [SIC] attorney trying to reinvent the wheel beyond the confines of the law.

Click to expand...

So Since9, which genre of constitutionalist to you profess to embrace?

Conservative or Strict?

BTW, Since9, could you provide a definiton of ‘obstructionist’ judge so the illustrious forum members might understand where your frame of mind to enhance further discussion, as the case might be!

Oh Since9, just an additional observation in passing ~ the use of the latin term ‘[sic]’ is normally used when someone quotes another’s statement and they misspelled a word, and certainly not when you can’t figure out how to spell the word ‘accomplished!’ https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/sic/

solus said:

So Since9, which genre of constitutionalist to you profess to embrace?

Conservative or Strict?

BTW, Since9, could you provide a definiton of ‘obstructionist’ judge so the illustrious forum members might understand where your frame of mind to enhance further discussion, as the case might be!

Oh Since9, just an additional observation in passing ~ the use of the latin term ‘[sic]’ is normally used when someone quotes another’s statement and they misspelled a word, and certainly not when you can’t figure out how to spell the word ‘accomplished!’ https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/sic/

Click to expand...

i think he meant accompliced and accomplished both at the same time, that's why he used sic.

Kelo v. New London pretty much assured that the constitution will always be of secondary (no?) consideration for every judge in the country. How do you think we got Terry v. Ohio? QI? ObummerCare...?

hammer6 said:

i think he meant accompliced and accomplished both at the same time, that's why he used sic.

Click to expand...

:banana: