New York Man Arrested After Shooting Home Invaders

a reply to: Rookseven

Not to mention I would think well trained would mean regular practice shooting the gun, but according to some, he never took the gun out of his house.

a reply to: dawnstar

The problem as I see it is this:

Authorities derive their power from those they govern. We the People have all the rights and power. We merely lend it (grant privileges) to our "leaders".

Article 3 is the shortest regarding the branches of gov't. I have no problem in principle with letting SCOTUS decide, *provided* there are clear avenues of redress to We the People. As it sits, there is no real way to remove a Justice. Set some term limits and restrictions on behavior and then we can talk.

Also, SCOTUS isn't subject to political whims? Did you see the Kavenaugh debacle?

a reply to: Rookseven

Spoken like the kind of good little citizen our politicians prefer.

If a law is passed tomorrow that all ATS users named Rookseven have to report to the gulag, will you comply?

There is legal, and there is lawful. "Shall not be infringed." is pretty clear and written in plain language.

Exercise of a right does not require permission.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

So who gets to decide what it means??

The thing means many things to differing people--usually at the same time. ...and that can lead to unpleasant things happening. Like civil wars, and such...

So in the interest of preventing "conflict of interests" who should decide?? The fact that SCOTUS does decide these things is why it's so very important that the right people are on the court--and that it's as balanced as possible. IMHO, of course.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Not expressly. It took Marbury v. Madison to decide that.

Their mandate is clearly spelled out in Article III, Section 1's first sentence. You obviously recognize this since you want that rewritten.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Implied powers =/= Delegated powers. Judicial review is not expressly given to the SCOTUS in Article 3.

One could interpret that to mean that is a power reserved to the states or the people.

I support taking the Constitution at face value. The only "interpretation" that should be done is to determine what the meaning of terms and words were at the time it was written.

I don't favor the "living document" interpretation. There is a mechanism for changing anything that needs it spelled out in the document itself. If something needs changed, follow the process.

If SCOTUS is to be given the power of judicial review, amend Article 3.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: 727Sky

It sounded like he was put in jail for violating the registration laws and not because he was defending his home. This like a policemen giving you a ticket for not having your license after someone rear ended you in your car. I once heard a policemen giving a reckless driving ticket to someone who skidded off the road while the person was getting their car pulled out of the ditch by a tow truck.

Wouldn't it be more like giving a ticket to a guy without a license that was rear ended while his car was in the garage?
This guy wasnt walking down the street with his gun, he was in his own home.

No because the gun was really not registered. It would be like you were saying if they put him jail AND his gun was really registered.

Why would anyone need to register a gun in the first place? Idiotic state with idiotic laws.

a reply to: 727Sky
Pretty crazy.

But this is why you dont call the cops if they have wacky laws in your state, and you just have to spend the few hours and effort to bury the bodies. Its just to much of a hassle and whole lot less time consuming to deal with the months and months of nonesense bull# of law interpretation and peoples opinions on guns.

I mean for a few hours and some driving around, vs months and months in jail and a 10,000 bail? Much more convenient and less time consuming to bury the bodies or just take them to the local cemetery and cremate them. At about 1,000 to two thousand per body, is still cheaper then they have the bail set at.

Sucks that you would have to waste your whole afternoon or a few days because some duchebags decided to rob the wrong house. But I suppose it beats the alternative, like this guy sitting in jail at 10,000$ bail is doing.

Oh ya! Anybody that says you dont have to right to defend yourself, is not your friend. People should know that by now.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...

Pretty straight foward.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
No because the gun was really not registered.

He should challenge the registration law as it violates the 2nd amendment.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
You do not get to pick and choose which laws you like and which ones you do not.

Actually, you do... in this case, the jury should acquit in spite of the law - this is a perfect example of what jury nullification is for.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
They have gun laws that allow people to own guns and protect their rights and property.

Eh? Thats like saying they have speech laws that allow people to speak freely.

The only law in question is the fundamental law Right to self defense, which is protected by the 2nd amenement.

Rights do not follow from laws.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I think gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance for their guns in cased of misuse.

Same for knife owners? What about baseball bat owners? Machete owners? Chain saw owners?

If your legal possessions are only used on your property and do not leave it there should be no reason for them to be registered. Erosion of gun rights is erosion of property rights.

Eroding the right to defend yourself in your own home is an attack on the people by the government. They want this story to be national news. They want people to feel like they are under threat of prosecution if they defend themselves.

The event that started this was an illegal act by the intruders. Should be all stop from there. You should not face any legal consequences on how you responded to a threat on your life, especially in your own home.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not expressly. It took Marbury v. Madison to decide that.

So an entity created by the Constitution gets to decide what it means... Bit of a conflict of interest.

I disagree with the assumption and believe that Article 3 should be rewritten to more clearly define the powers of the SCOTUS.

Yes, it probably did take Marbury v. Madison to seal the deal in peoples minds. But the case, as all should be, was settled by the Judges using the COTUS as the basis for the direction the ruling would have to be.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: 727Sky

It sounded like he was put in jail for violating the registration laws and not because he was defending his home. This like a policemen giving you a ticket for not having your license after someone rear ended you in your car. I once heard a policemen giving a reckless driving ticket to someone who skidded off the road while the person was getting their car pulled out of the ditch by a tow truck.

It's more like being given a ticket by a speech constable for not registering your voice after you were screaming while being raped.

What's the ole saying?

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

a reply to: Sillyolme

His example does not fail because children can drive a car on private property, hell children could drive a tank on private property. Traditionally you don't need licensing to do things on your own property. Yes there are ordinances about building and burning and such but if you have the land you could drive whatever you want with no license. So registering a gun that doesn't leave a property is one of those surveillance state things, they want to know what is inside your home before they get there.

Also to play devil's advocate if this gun were in his home and also these rapers/robbers showed up when no one was home, it could have been stolen. If he fails to report it or had forgotten about it, as it seems possible being it wasn't a regular use gun, no record of it could make for some sticky situations down the road. Just saying that records of things that have an ease of use like a gun that can kill could be a good thing, but as it goes to combat tyranny one would like to have some that they wouldn't know about, but that's getting harder and harder by the day.

All in all, I hope the case is thrown out, yes it's an inconvenient situation, but as it goes this is just a story told by a guy that just killed two people with a gun that law enforcement can't truly say where it came from on the spot. I would want an investigation just to make sure it's not coming from a more nefarious black market type situation.

Firm believer that anything can happen but sound investigation will reveal the truth and hopefully people will see this guy is a non issue.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CharlesT

Please site the right that is violated by gun registration.

I think gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance for their guns in cased of misuse.

I think you should have to carry liability insurance to exercise your 1st amendment rights. That way, I can sue your insurance company whenever you say something stupid. Remember, words are violence now.

This is a serious idea and not just a get-rich-quick scheme, I assure you.

a reply to: 727Sky

Sounds like this case should be argued on federal law trumping state laws on a 2nd amendment right being infringed.