President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 08, 2013 08:15 AM UTC
125 Comments
Thank you, GA Democrats, for going this far. The end is in sight. Hang on and stand firm!
So let's say that John Smith is depressed about Jane Doe dumping him. So he starts sending her 5 text messages a night. Jane Doe applies for and receives a permanent protection order against John Smith. The next month John meets Rebecca Smith and they marry and live happily ever after.
When can John Smith own guns again under SB-197?
His problem, not mine. Actions have consequenses. What's that bit again about–"personal responsibility"?
GalapagoLarry,
Punishment should match offense. Assuming this guy loses his right to own a gun in the hypo (not sure if I have how it works correctly, hence the assuming), isn't the punishment there quite excessive?
If you can assume, in your stetching-the-limits-of-reason scenario, that Jane, flighty thing that she is, suddenly decides to marry gentle John after getting a permanent restraining order, can't we assume that John can somehow snap after a perceived slight from Jane, and that it's a good idea to keep him from owning a gun?
In my scenario John marries Rebecca, not Jane.
The fact remains that under State and Federal law, John already has to convince the court that the restraining order should expire before he is legally allowed to possess firearms again. Who he sleeps with and who is on the marriage certificate doesn't matter – only that the court deems him no longer a heightened risk for violence with a firearm.
So we should copy federal policy that might be excessive? Sorry, but no.
Why not?
If a policy is excessive, why would we copy it?
Because it's only your opinion that it's excessive.
And your opinion carries very little weight in a factual discussion. Almost none, really.
Excessive is a normative judgment thus it is by definition subjective.
We allow the courts to adjudicate the situation. It's their job. If the person is still considered a risk such that their restraining order remains in place, then they still shouldn't be owning guns.
What about current (again – nothing new here) Federal and State policy is overly restrictive in your opinion?
I'm no expert in how this area of the law works. I have concerns from what I heard that blanket lifetime gun bans may be imposed on people with restraining orders against them even after any such real danger has long since passed.
Again though, I am not even close to being an expert in this area of the law and it is very possible I am not correctly understanding important nuances in how it works.
Here, Elliot. Read this story, then come back and boo-hoo some more about how restrained parties' rights are being violated if they can't buy firearms that they can then use to blow their beautiful little daughters away.
Elliot – I'm guessing the problem that you propose (assuming it exists in practice) isn't with the restraining orders, but rather with the gun restrictions database. 1229, the bill expanding background checks, is supposed to have a provision explicitly allowing people to challenge their listing in the CBI database (and, presumably then, the Federal database, since the two are somewhat linked).
If the restraining order is still in place, it is up to the person restrained to petition the court to remove it. If the order is gone and no convictions came of the case, then the law doesn't prohibit them from getting their guns back (if they stored them with law enforcement) or buy new ones. In fact, the storage provision is a strong indicator of that ability.
Really? You "have concerns from what you have heard" about something that "may" happen about something that you know "it is very possible I am not correctly understanding" and about which you are "no expert"–but you charge on with comment after commnet anyway? May I suggest: gather facts first; then form an opinion; then post?
You did notice the word "state"?
Here's some info on restrictions already in place in Colorado. Should help explain what would change and what would remain the same under the proposed legislation:
http://www.ehow.com/about_6330723_colorado-handgun-law.html
Post me some examples of permanent restraining orders granted to women simply because an ex-husband sent them five non-threatening, non-angry (you did not say threatening, implied merely heartbroken) text messages a day.
…
Otherwise it’s made up bullshit from a bullshiter that regularly makes things up, reduces them to absurd binary figments of non-reality, and denies the obvious through what seems purposeful obfuscation.
Clearly, Twitty, you don't understand the rules on Planet Fladen.
On Planet Fladen, Fladen gets to post whatever strikes his fancy and then it's up to you to post refuting evidence. Your assignment would now be to search the internet for proof that this hasn't happened in at least five cases, not his to prove that it has.
Don't complain to me. I don't make the rules. Fladen, Lord of Planet Fladen, makes them and we have to play by his planet's rules if we want to play with him at all. Which brings up an interesting point. Do we really want to?
I think the proper title is Lord of Planet Flatulence tabby.
This guy is such a clown that he would wait until Jane was gunned down and then prosecute John after the fact. Prevention of violence is not his/her/it's thing.
Uh, Bluecat, we are talking about Guns and I made a comment about Guns. Your point being?
Here's one for Eliot: A space alien named Xanax was looking for a ride to work one day, when along came the butcher–named Bob–who asked for the time.
Susie, who lived up the street–at least some of the time–was meanwhile making a blueberry-banana smoothy to start her day, unaware that Bob–packing heat–was looking for the time and Xanax, a grey, a ride to work at the meatpacking plant. Lots of aliens work at the meatpacking plant.
So, is Senator Brophy right to suggest that Dmocrats want to eat small children and leave women defenseless just becasue Susie had a smoothy?
Uh no Lord Flatulence. You were talking about hypotheticals that don't exist in the real world to make a silly point about how unfair it is to abusive stalkers to deny them their precious toys or something similarly stupid because you don't believe in gun violence prevention dick that you are.
Gilpin/Club Twitty,
Can a restraining order enter for stalking? And if so, does said restraining order bar a person from having guns under this bill while it is in effect?
My understanding (which I BELIEVE, but am unsure, is correct), is that such a restraining order can in fact enter and will also serve to ban a person from having guns under the bill in question while it is in effect. Thus, my hypo isn't about space aliens or flatulence. It is about simple situation which may occur often under the current law.
PS – ClubTwitty – speaking of cyberstalking, have you found anymore albums of my 16 month old toddler appealing?
/sarcasm
(oops 17 months old now)
The reply button went away for Mr. Fladen.
1st-Unless you can demonstrate that a heartbroken ex-husband sending non-threatening text messages, even five an evening, has resulted in a permanent restraining order, then your made up example is–indeed–about as sensible (and relevant) as space alien farts.
2nd-I have never mentioned, seen, looked at pictures of, or have no knowledge about your spawn. Despite your malodorous presence here, I have no opinion about your parenting skills, or lack thereof, or of your offspring.
ClubTwitty:
Re: your postings on my now 17 month old daughter:
http://coloradopols.com/diary/37685/thou-doth-protest-too-much-dean-singleton#comment-507175
http://coloradopols.com/diary/37685/thou-doth-protest-too-much-dean-singleton#comment-507523
There are others too.
Sorry, but that it is kind of disgusting in my view.
You asked about guns and what would happen to someone who had a restraining order because of a few e-mails to an x in terms of the ability to own guns. I posted info on…ummm… how restraining orders affect one's ability to own guns. With links and everything. So WTF, Eliot?
Sorry, I missed the e-how article. Thx for posting. I'll post a question on FB to see what the response is from others who are more knowledgable than me are on it.
https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/348252015279950
Me again, Eliot. Realized that you are probably referring to my reply to Twitty about the Fladen rules? If so that was clearly part of the continuing multi-party discussion on guns, restraining orders and the recovered lovelorn.
I'm not getting a reply oprion with your comments below so posted this here.
Is there some limit in this sytem to how many nesting reply boxes you get before it stops offering "reply"? Just one more fringe n benefit besides the lack of spell check and easy editing?
My understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) is that SB197 differs from current law in the following respects:
1) Current law has more discretion for judges in terms of having gun rights taken away:
2) Current law causes forfeiture only for DV – this will expand that to cases of harassment/stalking
3) This law has some possibly odd transfer provisions in the event a person is incarcerated
Again, I have not fully read up on this – I'm just trying to get a sense of how this all works.
when YOU purchase liability insurance that protects all from John's behavior with a gun
Answer: at the same time he currently can own guns again when under a restraining order – there's no change in that respect. (If it's a temporary order, the restriction ends when the order does; if it's a permanent order, he can petition to get the order rescinded.)
SB-197 does two things from what I can see: (1) it makes a DV restraining order automatically a firearms restraining order (at present it's optional at the discretion of the DA and judge), and (2) it becomes a crime not to turn in or sell your weapons if you're under a restraining order that would prevent you from buying a gun.
And from another site:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm
Maybe now I get it. You're trying to write a C&W song! I lost my guns cuz I told Jane I'd kill her but I loved her. Can't get my guns back, la, la, la
That's…kinda worlkable.
But there oughtta be a truck …and a dog.
And some drinkin…by a lake.
truck has to be wrecked. dog has to die. It is a C&W song after all. Usual elements; woman left, something wrong with truck, dog dies. Now we can add a 4th element of guns
and driknin by the lake.
There should always be some drinkin by the lake.
Ok, we got guns, drinkin' by the lake, the inop truck, the law misunderstandin' intent re: threatenin' to kill Jane and confiscatin' the gun, the dog that died and the unrequited love.
Some how we have to work in how "libruls" love bin laden, how this guy's dad used to beat him, urban society's moral decay and the need for hand guns in church, Chrysler shippin' Jeep to China, and the preacher runnin' off with Jane after hearin' the poor guy that threatened to kill Jane, but was kidding, got arrested for breakin' parole.
Somethin' for Hank Williams?
that is a whole album, maybe a life's work
1224 & 1226 are the bills that change the direction of our state (and to a degree the nation) from heading toward a society like Iraq with regular murderous violence and in the direction of reduced violence and civilization.
The easy bills are easy because they don't change our direction. 1224 & 1226 are hard because they will have a fundamental impact on what our society becomes. That's also why they're worth every effort.
I take a slightly different look than David here.
The failure of 1226 probably wouldn't be the end of the world politically for gun control. And if some action is desired, a replacement bill could be crafted that would achieve a similar effect – perhaps requiring all gun owners on campus to register their weapons with the campus police and certify that they have (and use) appropriate secured storage, with assurances that the registrations will be deleted if they leave campus.
1224 is worth fighting for, IMHO. It's not a particularly strong bill – 15 rounds is not exactly a low number – but it's a step in the right direction, and as the Guvs and David both note, any action in that direction by a Western state would be a positive note on the national debate.
These both remind me of the first civil rights bill LBJ got through the Senate. That bill also didn't do that much, but it was the first civil rights bill in 80 years to pass. It changed the direction and that was gigantic.
As you said, both bills are weak. But they change direction from making our society more violent to less violent. That change in direction is gigantic. Also, if these 2 bills which are reasonable and minor by any rational standard cannot pass, then what can? Or do we have to live in an ever more violent society?
1226 doesn't really change much, though. Prohibition of guns on campus is widely adopted and was only overturned here in the recent past by the courts.
1224 isn't really new, either – it's just new here in the gun-toting West. As such, it has more symbolic value.
The Denver newspaper is reporting that HB 1226 is being pulled by Senator Rollie Heath — and will not be debated. I am sorry to see this action. This bill should be debated, and if it dies, so be it. At least then voters will be able to see how each Senator voted — and have an opportunity to retire those that vote against the wishes of their constituents. If several Democratic seats change hands, I will not be sorry.
I could also live with an amendment allowing individual college campuses (not necessarily college systems) to make the decision on a gun ban. This would allow for control at the local level rather that the State Supreme Court's one-size-fits-all approach.
It was probably the weakest of the bills in actual effect while being among the most controversial. I agree with you that it probably should have been debated – perhaps if only to draw fire away from earlier bills which might now get more focus.
How's it going??????????????????????
BTW, I explained to my wife the no guns in Colleges and magazine limit laws and her comment was "well those are the no-brainers to pass." She couldn't believe that Republicans were opposing those – she kept drilling me for what else was in those bills that were the real reason for the opposition.
The Republican party is going to lose more and more people as they continue to fight progress on every front.
Don't tell that to A-GOrP – he is as certain that this will drive people back into the Republican fold as he was that Romney was going to carry Colorado and win the general election.
Not very many minutes ago, Baumgardner tried to slip in something about one of the bill sponsors (1229), stating he was reading from a letter (from Kansas?) – he said one of the sponsors has "a past." He was stopped by the Chair, then didn't return to that slur. What a guy he is – reminds me of Sen Jean White's words following last year's Primary – "his lies beat my truths."
@EF- Good lord man. I have never posted about your daughter. The links you provided go to another's comments not my own. Holy moly! Are you that incompetent?
@EF- I don't like being accused of things I clearly never did. Since you did it here publicly you need to 1) admit your error here, publicly and 2) apologize to me here publicly. I mean, if you are an honorable adult person.
Crap – you are absolutely right ClubTwitty about it going to another's (DaftPunk's in fact) comments. I'm sorry about the mix-up – multi-tasking right now.
Thanks for that. Now back to the matter at hand–your made up hypothetical that (as far as any evidence produced by you) has little connection with the real world and is thus a fallacious tool for argument, similar to spaceman farts.
To be fair it isn't always easy of who replied to what here. But you know, that's one of the consequences of using your own name. You can't have it both ways. We tease Dave about all his bragging about his super self, R pol mom and daughters and he doesn't have a cow over it. Wasn't it something like a comment about name choice? Big deal.
ClubTwitty – and again my apologies for my earlier error about confusing you with DaftPunk – why do you say it has little connection to the real world?
Becasue your John and Jane example was made up and you have yet to provide any evidence that text messges (non threatening, non harrassing, simply 'five an evening') would result in a permanenet restraining order.
Since yohto drate it is–i fact–a real world example, I state it has little connection tothereal world.
Thanks for your apology. I was no where on that thread, so I am unsure why you settled on me, but I apprecate it.
I miss spell check, my wireless keyboard likes to drop letters. I miss being able to see how many new comments are on a thread. I miss being able to see which of my comments have responses…
@CT. I agree with you 100% on what is most missing from this site
I miss everyone agreeing with me.
Oh wait, that didn't happen on the old system either…
Yup, still needed.
So, it sucked when someone else brought up your daughter a couple of weeks ago. It sucked so bad that you had to bring her up today in a thread about all the gun legislation. That is really staying on topic
To answer about restraining orders for stalking:
Yes, you can have a restraining order for stalking. Yes, those can fall under the category of DV restraining orders (but not necessarily). Restraining orders are subject to a hearing, so there's due process.
So if you can have a restraining order for stalking, does current law allow (or even mandate) for the deprivation of gun rights in the event that no crime/threat of violence has occurred?
Because the way I understand how this bill will change thing is if a person simply goes OCD and starts annoying a perosn to the point of getting a restraining order against him/her they can lose their gun rights for life. If true, that really seems excessive – driving a person crazy by stalking is not a good thing but it shouldn't necessarily cause a person to lose their gun rights for the remainder of their life.
I have asked and you have refused, that you provide examples from the REAL WORLD (preferably here in Colorado but I am feeling somewhat lenient given your inabilty to produce anything) and not some hypothetical one: Where a permanent restraining order was issued merely for sending five non-threatening text messages (a night) to an ex-wife.
Without those the flatulence moniker seems apropos to me.
Any update on magazine limits and no guns in school??????
for the first time I'm wishing I was down there to see the leg in action.
Still randpaulbustering, now on the magazine size limits, I believe.
Is that supposed to be a dig at Rand Paul?
I'm more than happy to take a shot at rand paul
While he was running the CPAC promo, polishing his bona fides for ultra cornservative positions, Caitlyn Halligan was filibustered simultaneously from being confirmed circuit judge to the D.C. Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
paul is at best a cynical political opportunist, a typical libertarian that lays in the deep grass he professes to hate.
He's on one hand the hero that resurected "Mr. Smith", by going old school with the 13 hour grand stand, greatly aided by fellow ayn rand accolytes cruz and rubio. No silent filibuster for old rand paul, but full blown yakkathon.
On the other, not a peep on the unconcienable silent filibuster he simultaneously put on Ms. Halligan, who people are raving is a whiz like Elizabeth Warren.
Like his attack onf the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act, VOWA, and the Voters' Rights Act, Paul showed one hand, then stole the watch with the other. His dramatic gesticulations re:Secretary Brennan not being qualified to be CIA Chief because he "feared Eric Holder will kill a cafe goer in San Francisco with a drone" made no sense in context, but were sure fire fox news clips to be fed to the paranoid demographic on the fringe right.
The libertarian fringe right.
In the end, paul will, like all libertarians, especially ayn rand, scorn the social safety net, demonize those who utilize it, villify all that support it, and vow it's the end of our capitalistic system………..right up to the moment he begins to draw from it. A real honest to goodness hypocrite.
Yeah, rand paul's a pretty easy "dig"
if you listened to much of what Paul said during his filibuster it was pretty crazed. But, it made him even more popular with the tea baggers and they (I get 3 emails/day from them) are using him to try to increase funding. Any R Senator who entertains thoughts of '16 is going to have to find their cause celebre and mimic his performance. Could be a fun 1 1/2 years.
Gray, If that's the case, they've learned nothing.
CW is that romney lost millions of votes because he tacked so extremely right to get the nomination, he couldn't come back center enough to seem sincere and sane.
Going right of rand paul? A head shaker for sure, and a chuckle.
You're right Gray, this will be a fun 1 and a half years.
Sen. Baumgartner. Wow.
Piece of work, isn't he . . .
Any update on the guns in schools bill? Even if it doesn't have the votes, will it still be put up so we can see how each Senator voted?
Steve King, professional fear mongerer.
Sen. Harvey is a fool. Purposefully misrepresenting facts makes him a liar in my mind.
Sen. Brophy thinks that 3% is 'ubiquitous.'
("These guns have become ubiquitous. We are told there are 12,000,000 of these assault type rifles in the nation" [and there are 375,000,000]).
375 million people. Thus 3% of the population (less since some folks have multiple) have these, or as the goofy Senator said 'ubiquitous.'
Merriam-Webster: "Ubiquitous" existing or being everywhere at the same time : constantly
I'm about to cry because Brophy needs assault rifles to shoot watermelons. Oh, the humanity! . . .
80s hair guy is back at the podium
Sen. Renfroe, not Harvey…is who I meant.
This is exciting Democracy. It is going to give national exposure to the issue and to Colorado at the level that Wisconsin got with Scott Walker except it is Democrats who are leading. Kudos to Democratic leadership for pushing the envelope on doing something to stem the tide of gun violence in our society.
And it's a western state. We know the right doesn't consider the northeastern states to be the "real" America (just ask Sarah Palin) but here we are right next to states like Utah and Wyoming. Colorado continues to be in the vanguard of things to come. If sensible gun control measures can be passed here by the state legislature we the people of Colorado elected, guess they're not just for those bleeding heart liberal eastern blue staters anymore.
I'm sure, howevr, that ArapG and friends will find a way to believe that the legislators we elected don't represent us and our rights are being trampled against our will.
Representing people and trampling on rights are different concepts. The majority of America would not have let the Nazi party of America march through the heavily Jewish (and populated with Holocaust survival victims) Skokie, IL but the ACLU successfully defended the KKK's right to do just that..because the first amendment is not contingent on the popularity of the speech. Same idea with the second amendment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/remembering-the-nazis-in_b_188739.html
Anytime someone uses Nazis in a post to try and invoke fear is an automatic fail Lord Flatulence. What an asshole to use the Holocaust to defend the continued slaughter of the innocent. You're just a little fucking turd to claim to be a victim when the real victims are buried in the ground and their loved ones lives have been torn asunder forever.
You are such a big freedom loving fan but you want to enslave women. What a hypocrite.
I have yet to see you post anything that reveals that you actually care about the level of gun violence in our society or offer even one idea regarding what we can do to reduce it and foster a more peaceful world. Not one constructive idea so fuck you and your obsessive selfishness dude.
Your mind is sure a dark hateful little place isn't it. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not make them evil.
Having people senselessly murdered and then frauds defend the rights of the murderers tends to continue to kill tends to do that to me.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3taxs3/
A link without a word of explanation? I never click on those.
I agree Gilpin Guy.
He's a fraud.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3taxs3/
Gilpin,
Maybe you want to reread my post. It was not about the Holocaust, it was about the famous Skokie case.
You still haven't offered one idea regarding the ways that we can reduce gun violence in our communities. None. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. You're as vacuous regarding ways we can improve the safety of our society as the rest of the Pro-Murderers in your political party.
Gilpin Guy,
Oh, so these laws are about reducing gun violence? On what basis do you so conclude? And how much of a reduction are you expecting for the infringement on people's ability to own arms?
only those with restraining orders have suffered any infringement, and they get due process first
So these laws are about unduly infringing on someone's rights? Why have you still not posted a REAL WORLD example demonstrating that your little fictictous hypothetical has a connection to fact?
There are legitimate times to bring up Nazi comparisons… and then there are violations of Godwin's Law. This is the latter. Your comparing the First and Second Amendments in the fashion is illogical, because these bills don't infringe upon a person's right to bear arms.
Aristotle – this is not the Nazi party of Germany or even talking about the Nazi's conduct. This is taking about the ACLU's conduct in defending first amendment rights of people they disagree with. Key distinction.
In any event (and I mixed up people yesterday so I want to confirm beforehand) – wasn't it you that asked me if I classified the "Final Solution" as evidence of racism yesterday?
It was, but that was known as a "valid question," which I brought up in order to find out just what kind of evidence you'd accept as proof of intent. Turns out that you're inconsistent.
This may not be a violation of Godwin's in the strict sense, but you are still comparing legislators representing their constituents to a civil rights group taking on a case in defense of the Constitution. (The identity and politics of their clients is irrelevant.)
I don't see how I was inconsistent on that point. I pointed out in that exchange that the issue wasn't the 'weight" of the evidence, but rather your evidence (on puprorted GOP racism) simply didn't show racism.
Elliot, you're probably just not a self aware person. You demanded smoking-gun evidence to prove GOP's ingrained racism, but did not when we wanted to prove that the extermination of the Jews was ordered by the Nazis.
Now, you're drawing a false comparison between an actual case of someone losing their First Amendment rights with a supposition of a loss of Second Amendment rights, a supposition that you have failed to support, or illustrate as possible under the laws being debated in the State Senate yesterday.
I think the common thread is that your notions are driven by emotion at the expense of fact and logic. I'm not going to say emotion is bad – all of us here are passionate. But we have to strive to value the facts before us, and to draw only logical conclusions from them, when we make our arguments.
An apples and oranges comparison. No democratically elected representatives passed legislation to prevent Nazis from marching so you're talking about something other than actions by legislators. The ACLU was right to defend the rights of the marchers and did so successfully.
Now if it's the same incident I remember from youth, my uncle was one of the guys who who showed up with baseball bats at the exits leading into Skokie, the big brave Nazis decided to take a pass and the march never happened. Not because it was banned but because they were, like most of their kind, wussies.
Was the intimidation strictly kosher? Probably not but we were all pretty proud of our ballsy middle aged greatest generation Jewish guys just the same. As my uncle would say, so sue me. As far as I know, the Nazis never did. Probably too embarrassed.
As to the second amendment, whether or not any of the legislation that passes violates it is up to the courts. If they rule that any of new laws do, those laws will be overturned. If not, they won't be.
That's how we adjust the democratic process to prevent trampling on rights, minority or other, in our system of government, not by insisting on hypotheticals or that it is our right as opinionated individuals to decide instead of the courts'. Our elected legislators legislate and the courts correct if they violate the constitution. Not trampling or tyranny, just the American way.
As there is plenty of precedent for rulings allowing some regulation of the right to bear arms, the chances that these laws will be ruled unconstituional are probably slim. Last time I checked fully automatic weapons are still banned and I still don't have the right to board my flight with a gun. The courts don't seem to have a constitutional problem with those or several other restrictions so the second amendment right to bear arms is already and has for a very long time been established as not so absolute as to be beyond any degree of regulation according to the only branch of government in charge of interpreting it.
Try to keep your comparisons a little more apt.
+12
And to avoid all confusion with the nesting box format, my comment above is in answer to the Fladen comment starting with "Representing people and trampling on rights are different concepts'" as if anyone thought they weren't or as if that sentence says anything relevant to the discussion.
Bluecat, since you are so deferential to the Court's interpretation of what the Constitution means, does that mean you accept the Citizen United ruling?
I disagree with it and hope to see it overturned but until it is, it's the legit law of the land and to call it tyranny would be incorrect. My side is working on an amendment to correct what we see as a bad ruling which is a legitimate way to approach the problem. So is working to make sure we keep electing Dem Presidents who will give us a less wacko court in the future, one that might re-vist this ruling. Your side can work for more R Presidents and an even wackier court. That's life in our Republic.
Your side might like to see, for instance, an amendment clearly stating that the right of individuals to bear arms cannot be infringed by any regulation. Of course that would mean we could all bring fully automatic weapons to the movies and show up at the Super Bowl with shoulder rocket launchers but hey, anything less makes your second amendment rights less than absolute, doesn't it? So if want absolute, something for which there is no precedent up until now, you're going to need an amendment.
So maybe you should work on that. And may the least insane win, fair and sqaure via the interaction of the three branches of our democratically elected representative government, a government of the people in which the balance between the power of the majority and the rights of the minority are among the things established in our constitution subject to being interpreted on an ongoing basis by our judicial branch.
Note the ratio of Fladen to responder words per post.
You write paragraphs, he quips back with one-liners, and then dissapears when confronted with facts or direct requests for more information.
Y'all being trolled. It's more sophistcated than what turd or gopher provide, but it's trolling nonetheless.
Polonius:
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . .
Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 86–92
(emphasis added)
I think you are more trusting of SCOTUS to get things right than I am (even though we might disagree on the things SCOTUS gets wrong)
It's not about trust, Elliot. It's about understanding what it means to live in a nation of laws, not men.
Why did Eisenhower call in the National Guard to desegregate Central High School?
Aristotle,
I believe, perhaps unlike you, that our Supreme Court Justices are fallible. See Pless v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). This is part of the reason office holders in the United States swear an oath to uphold the Constittution and not Precedent.
PLESSY not Pless.
Fuck you Fladen. I NEVER implied that I believe that they are. Neither did Blue Cat.
Christ. Can't you stay on topic? IT'S THE LAW, not what's RIGHT or WRONG. You're supposed to be a lawyer – what makes it so fucking difficult for you to parse these differences?
You know damn well that jurisprudence carries all the weight of the Constitution. Yes, SCOTUS can change it. But until they do?
Give me an apology for that. NOW.
And not some fauxpology either. Take full responsibility for what you said.
Aristotle,
I originally said this to Bluecat: "I think you are more trusting of SCOTUS to get things right than I am (even though we might disagree on the things SCOTUS gets wrong)"
Said comment was regarding a tangent involving Citizens United and the Nazi Skokie protest from several decades ago.
You said: "It's not about trust, Elliot. It's about understanding what it means to live in a nation of laws, not men"
I took your comment to meant that PERHAPS you put precedent over the Constitution's literal words. Hence why I used the word PERHAPS in my comment. I simple disclaimer from you that you held no such belief would have sufficed in such a situation. Accordingly no apology to you is warranted on this and none will be provided.
Disclaimers are not needed. It was discernable from all our previous encounters, or it should be to someone who isn't thick as a castle wall. But even then you could have assumed the best instead of the worst OR – not assumed anything.
You're worthless to the discussions here. Whether it's your density or disingenuousness, you're simply not to be regarded as an honorable or insightful contributor to this site. That's too bad – Pols could use one from your side.
Aristotle,
After insulting me on a personal basis and then getting petty in demanding an apology which you in no way deserved, it is pretty rich of you to suggest I add nothing to a discussion.
Well done, Senate Majority.
They changed the direction of our society. And that's gigantic. To quote Churchill, it's the end of the beginning. Kudos to our legislators for standing up to a very vocal minority and voting in the interests of the residents of this state (who don't want to see their children murdered).
Oh, and come election time I'll hit up friends and family for max contributions to any legislator who voted for these (and civil unions) who's in a close race.
Fladen you just did it again.
Very proud today of the legislators who didn't wither in the face of angry rhetoric and who've enacted common-sense gun reforms. Special kudos to them for finally closing the background check loophole!
A lot of people are saying the background check was the REAL gorrilla in the room to the fire arms industry.
How much money's going to be lost, because it wasn't made, due to people not attempting to purchase a firearm through a secondary market because of knowing they'll fail the background check? How many fewer guns produced purchased?
I'm thinking a lot. Magazine size really isn't as important to the industry, as they would simply set the press to build a conforming magazine. It's a great rallying cry for the gadsen goofs, but not a hill for a climber. Lots of smoke, but no fire.
Yeah, old dudley do wrong's going to have some 'splainin' to do as to how he failed to properly disrupt the legislative process. The industry don't like that thar slippery slope.
This is a game changer. Cornservative lobbyists' and pinko base activists' intimidation, threats, character assasination, the politics of personal destruction, and just flat made up scandals used to cow Democratic Legislators here pretty regularly. This 2013 crew of Dem's is a different kettle of fish, and the republicans should have known it would be just this way at last sessions' end.
Bless your hearts Democrats, you're fearless.
And yet, closing background check loopholes polls sky high, better than any of the other proposals. The barrage of fear mongering directed at convincing people that background checks, which are already in place for about 60% of purchases, equals national registry and confiscation as the next steps doesn't seem to be budging those numbers much.
So , I agree this is a real problem for the fire arms industry. They can sell as many smaller size magazines as they want but they make a lot of money selling guns to those who shouldn't have them and really, really don't want to have to stop.
Same with perscription drugs. The industry makes tons of money selling drugs that wind up supplying the illegal perscription drug trade. If all the Rush Limbaughs in the world suddenly stopped illegally obtaining their drugs at once, that would make a huge dent in the ol' bottom line. As will background checks without loopholes you could drive a fleet of trucks through for the fire arms industry.
It's not about freedom. It's about profit.