Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2014, 09:06 PM  
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12239
SCOTUS Watch June 2014

Gonna be a huge month for the Supreme Court.

Here are some decisions we should see in the next 10 days...

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
This should be an EPIC SMACKDOWN to Obama and his arrogant bullshit. This is by far the one I am most anticipating.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Not sure how this will play but leaning toward a poke in the eye for Obama here.

... and the rest that sort of matter...

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
This is a no brainer.

Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie
So is this one.

Aereo
Tough call here.

McCullen v. Coakley
Very tough call.

..and a dozen or so more that shouldn't matter unless we get some crazy decision.
Posts: 15,272
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 10:48 AM   #46
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $10416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
Not even close - read the law and the case again.

The law states that the one purchasing the gun must pass a background check (among other things). What the dissenting opinion is saying is that the form's question on who is the purchaser shouldn't be there, since the person purchasing the firearm at this time is indeed the one making this purchase (ie. the defendant and therefore the question is redundant).

The law itself states that the purchaser must pass a background check - not some 'ultimate' purchaser. When the defendant 'sells' the gun to his uncle, then the uncle should have to pass a background check - and get this - he filled out the paper work and did! The 'stink' on this issue is the uncle sent the check ahead of time. If he had waited ~2 weeks, there is no case at all.

Kagan & company ultimately don't want private gun sales. To that affect, in this case, they are using the form as if it were the law instead of the actual law itself. Remember, the uncle ALSO filled out the necessary forms for a firearm purchase. No one was trying to hide anything.

Kagan and such are ignoring the, as Scalia put it, 'plain English of the law'. They are twisting a question on a form to hinder a gun sale because a check was written 'too early'. Its ridiculous.
No, your reading is grossly inaccurate. The dissent said nothing about that the question "shouldn't be there", since that's not really their business as judges to be making policy recommendations. They argued that under the law *as written* the defendant's statement that he was the true purchaser wasn't "material" to the false statement penalties. They were arguing that, if Congress wants to make authoring such a statement a crime, they need to be more specific, or spell out the requirement in different detail.

If your version is correct, please quote the portion of the dissent where they make any such recommendation that "the question shouldn't be there".

Kagan made no opinion about "not wanting private gun sales" that simply isn't in the majority opinion. You will be unable to produce any such language. It sounds like you read a paraphrase of the opinion and are trying to utilize it to awkwardly make a political point, and ironically, you ask me to re-read the opinion.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 33,213
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 10:52 AM   #47
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $10416
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
The bold part is the camp banyon is in too. Or he favors more gun controls.
Where have I been advocating for that?

I probably own more weapons than 95% of the people who post here, have a conceal carry permit, and belong to the NRA.

Simply because I disagree with your misreading of a SCOTUS opinion, I must be advocating for gun control?

You are an idiot.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 33,213
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 11:02 AM   #48
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
No, your reading is grossly inaccurate. The dissent said nothing about that the question "shouldn't be there", since that's not really their business as judges to be making policy recommendations. They argued that under the law *as written* the defendant's statement that he was the true purchaser wasn't "material" to the false statement penalties. They were arguing that, if Congress wants to make authoring such a statement a crime, they need to be more specific, or spell out the requirement in different detail.

If your version is correct, please quote the portion of the dissent where they make any such recommendation that "the question shouldn't be there".

Kagan made no opinion about "not wanting private gun sales" that simply isn't in the majority opinion. You will be unable to produce any such language. It sounds like you read a paraphrase of the opinion and are trying to utilize it to awkwardly make a political point, and ironically, you ask me to re-read the opinion.
I agree with this interpretation.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:00 PM   #49
Xanathol Xanathol is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Casino cash: $6730
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
No, your reading is grossly inaccurate. The dissent said nothing about that the question "shouldn't be there", since that's not really their business as judges to be making policy recommendations. They argued that under the law *as written* the defendant's statement that he was the true purchaser wasn't "material" to the false statement penalties. They were arguing that, if Congress wants to make authoring such a statement a crime, they need to be more specific, or spell out the requirement in different detail.

If your version is correct, please quote the portion of the dissent where they make any such recommendation that "the question shouldn't be there".

Kagan made no opinion about "not wanting private gun sales" that simply isn't in the majority opinion. You will be unable to produce any such language. It sounds like you read a paraphrase of the opinion and are trying to utilize it to awkwardly make a political point, and ironically, you ask me to re-read the opinion.
Comprehension is vital. In the dissenting opinion, it clearly states, and I quote (again):
Quote:
We interpret criminal statutes, like other statutes, in a manner consistent with ordinary English usage. In ordinary usage, a vendor sells (or delivers, or transfers) an item of merchandise to the person who physically appears in his store, selects the item, pays for it, and takes possession of it. So if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store “sells” the milk and eggs to me.
You cannot be more direct at stating who the 'purchaser' is. It what circumstance would the purchaser at the time of purchase ever be any other? Exactly - none. You may say 'what if you buy it for your kid?' and it still doesn't matter; at the time of purchase, you are the purchaser. In order to give it to your kid, they too have to fill out the paper work with a licensed resaler. Does Scalia literally say to remove the question? No - but anyone with basic comprehension skills see the point he is making. Hell, you even make the point in your quote showing it was 'non-material', ie. it does not matter.

Kagan et al are well known to be an anti-gun advocates and if you can't see their motives for ruling the way they did, then I've got some of that infamous property to sell you... Her opinion is stating that who ultimately owns the gun would have to directly purchase it, as she states that acting as a 'straw' would deny the sale. How much more plainly can it get?
Posts: 552
Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 02:15 PM   #50
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $10416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
Comprehension is vital. In the dissenting opinion, it clearly states, and I quote (again):

Quote:
We interpret criminal statutes, like other statutes, in a manner consistent with ordinary English usage. In ordinary usage, a vendor sells (or delivers, or transfers) an item of merchandise to the person who physically appears in his store, selects the item, pays for it, and takes possession of it. So if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store “sells” the milk and eggs to me
You cannot be more direct at stating who the 'purchaser' is. It what circumstance would the purchaser at the time of purchase ever be any other? Exactly - none. You may say 'what if you buy it for your kid?' and it still doesn't matter; at the time of purchase, you are the purchaser. In order to give it to your kid, they too have to fill out the paper work with a licensed resaler. Does Scalia literally say to remove the question? No - but anyone with basic comprehension skills see the point he is making. Hell, you even make the point in your quote showing it was 'non-material', ie. it does not matter.
Strangely, your chosen quote here actually underscores the analysis I already provided to you. It really couldn't be a clearer example that the dissent here was interpreting the meaning of the way the question was worded, and arguing that the answer was insufficient as an evidentiary matter because of an interpretation. They employ a common-usage analysis, hence the little analogy with the grocery store. They do not state here (as was your earlier claim) that "the question shouldn't be asked". They state "The question wasn't asked in the right way", which is what I already posted to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
Kagan et al are well known to be an anti-gun advocates and if you can't see their motives for ruling the way they did, then I've got some of that infamous property to sell you... Her opinion is stating that who ultimately owns the gun would have to directly purchase it, as she states that acting as a 'straw' would deny the sale. How much more plainly can it get?
Kagan's pretty new to the Court, so I am not very knowledgeable about such advocacy on her part. What information do you have which leads you to conclude that?

As for her comments on straw purchasing in the majority opinion, you have chosen to (mis)paraphrase them as opposed to quoting them. I can guess your reasons for such a choice. Clearly, pointing out that straw purchasing has the potential to undermine a background check system if it cannot be detected and prosecuted is a different position than "private sales ought not to occur" which appears nowhere in the opinion.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 33,213
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 02:28 PM   #51
Cochise Cochise is offline
Legend
 
Cochise's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Casino cash: $19921
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Where have I been advocating for that?

I probably own more weapons than 95% of the people who post here, have a conceal carry permit, and belong to the NRA.

Simply because I disagree with your misreading of a SCOTUS opinion, I must be advocating for gun control?

You are an idiot.
You must be new here.
Posts: 43,880
Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Cochise has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 04:23 PM   #52
Xanathol Xanathol is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Casino cash: $6730
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Strangely, your chosen quote here actually underscores the analysis I already provided to you. It really couldn't be a clearer example that the dissent here was interpreting the meaning of the way the question was worded, and arguing that the answer was insufficient as an evidentiary matter because of an interpretation. They employ a common-usage analysis, hence the little analogy with the grocery store. They do not state here (as was your earlier claim) that "the question shouldn't be asked". They state "The question wasn't asked in the right way", which is what I already posted to you.
So you've changed your stance from
Quote:
The dissent was the one advocating to strike down a popularly elected law by rendering it useless
to
Quote:
They state "The question wasn't asked in the right way", which is what I already posted to you.
instead of just admitting you were wrong... anyhow...

Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Kagan's pretty new to the Court, so I am not very knowledgeable about such advocacy on her part. What information do you have which leads you to conclude that?
See here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
As for her comments on straw purchasing in the majority opinion, you have chosen to (mis)paraphrase them as opposed to quoting them. I can guess your reasons for such a choice. Clearly, pointing out that straw purchasing has the potential to undermine a background check system if it cannot be detected and prosecuted is a different position than "private sales ought not to occur" which appears nowhere in the opinion.
That's is an insanely dense conclusion. Right now, it is a very simple process - if you buy a gun, you have to pass a background check. If you then pass that gun along, via sale or otherwise, that person has to pass a background check through a licensed resaler. Failure to adhere to that process means you break the law. In no instance is the person buying the gun at any point not considered the purchaser at that point, plain & simple.

Their convoluted ruling can only be a means to obstruct the private sale. She is stating that the defendant should have put the Uncle's name and the application thus denied and is therefore holding him guilty of a felony - completely asinine, as Scalia has illustrated. Moreover, how many people who are looking to supply a gun to a person trying to avoid a background check are going specify who the gun is actually for? Use some common sense here....

Speaking of which, arguing that a statement was not explicitly made in the decision is just childish. If you need it spelled out to you that Scalia basically said 'this is ridiculous' or that Kagan et al was simply trying to find a way to find this guy guilty because of their stance on guns, then you're going to have a hard time in life.
Posts: 552
Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 07:07 PM   #53
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $10416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
So you've changed your stance from

Quote:
The dissent was the one advocating to strike down a popularly elected law by rendering it useless
to

Quote:
They state "The question wasn't asked in the right way", which is what I already posted to you.
instead of just admitting you were wrong... anyhow...
I guess I have to point out that I'm not changing my stance. I believe both of those things are true, because they aren't mutually exclusive and in fact one is an explanation of the other. You see, courts often nullify the will of the legislature by imparting a different meaning to the terms of a law than the drafters of the law intended. It has been done repeatedly through our 200 year history and is a way in which a court can nullify the legislature (usually what people who use the term activism mean instead of meaning just "people who don't agree with me." For a review of this ability of courts, I suggest reviewing the Lochner era decisions and their progeny which frustrated the reform efforts of FDR and his precursors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
Oh, cute you linked to a Google page. Let's see. You make the claim, and I'm supposed to prove it? Not familiar with the burden of proof I'm guessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
That's is an insanely dense conclusion. Right now, it is a very simple process - if you buy a gun, you have to pass a background check.
False. If you buy a gun from an FFL (Federal Firearms Licenseholder), then you have to pass a background check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
If you then pass that gun along, via sale or otherwise, that person has to pass a background check through a licensed resaler. Failure to adhere to that process means you break the law. In no instance is the person buying the gun at any point not considered the purchaser at that point, plain & simple.
Again false, because it can easily be privately transferred without going through an FFL. You sound like someone who hasn't bought many guns I am guessing. The Brady Background Check Bill did not apply to private sales at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
Their convoluted ruling can only be a means to obstruct the private sale. She is stating that the defendant should have put the Uncle's name and the application thus denied and is therefore holding him guilty of a felony - completely asinine, as Scalia has illustrated. Moreover, how many people who are looking to supply a gun to a person trying to avoid a background check are going specify who the gun is actually for? Use some common sense here....
It doesn't obstruct any private sale. It only means that if you are purchasing from an FFL, you must be honest on your form that you are the one who intends to possess the gun. Does not affect private sales AT ALL, which DO NOT require a background check.

Why is making it a crime to lie on a federal form under oath asinine? It applies to just about anything else you can name: mortgages, taxes, student loans, anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
Speaking of which, arguing that a statement was not explicitly made in the decision is just childish.
It wasn't made explicitly, implicitly, by reference, or even in dicta (look that up), so your failure to demonstrate the claim that you (not me) made, is up to you (not me).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
If you need it spelled out to you that Scalia basically said 'this is ridiculous' or that Kagan et al was simply trying to find a way to find this guy guilty because of their stance on guns, then you're going to have a hard time in life.

I'm not sure what houses of cards you are used to knocking down, but you won't find one here. You seem outraged about the ruling, but do not actually wish to discuss its contents. If that's your goal, make a poster and stand on a street corner or something.

And I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to read court opinions and analyze them so I don't really need your approval, thanks.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 33,213
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 09:56 PM   #54
go bowe go bowe is offline
bye bye bo...
 
go bowe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: independence
Casino cash: $9972
but but some rand0m asshole on the internet says it's so...

justice xanthamanol cannot be questioned, clearly you don't have any idea what you're talking about you rotten lawyer type you...
Posts: 30,459
go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 10:02 PM   #55
alnorth alnorth is offline
.
 
alnorth's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Iowania
Casino cash: $47373029
Might be slightly off-topic, but just a quick observation. If you are in an argument or debate with someone, do not go for the "reading comprehension is not your strong suit" type of retort.

It might momentarily make you feel good, but it does not make you look clever. If you are fantasizing that the rest of us are going to nod, grin, and shoot you a thumbs-up for your witty, sick burn, that is not happening. All it does is make you look like a douche, even if you happen to be right.

If you feel like you are not being understood or have been misinterpreted, just calmly point it out to them and explain your point a little more clearly.
__________________
<ptp> how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb?
<Willy> HOW MANY?!
<ptp> none they just sit in the dark and cry
Posts: 28,283
alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 10:07 PM   #56
go bowe go bowe is offline
bye bye bo...
 
go bowe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: independence
Casino cash: $9972
obviously reading comprehension is not your strong suit...
Posts: 30,459
go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 12:21 AM   #57
Xanathol Xanathol is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Casino cash: $6730
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
I guess I have to point out that I'm not changing my stance. I believe both of those things are true, because they aren't mutually exclusive and in fact one is an explanation of the other. You see, courts often nullify the will of the legislature by imparting a different meaning to the terms of a law than the drafters of the law intended. It has been done repeatedly through our 200 year history and is a way in which a court can nullify the legislature (usually what people who use the term activism mean instead of meaning just "people who don't agree with me." For a review of this ability of courts, I suggest reviewing the Lochner era decisions and their progeny which frustrated the reform efforts of FDR and his precursors.
So you're still squirming, we get it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Oh, cute you linked to a Google page. Let's see. You make the claim, and I'm supposed to prove it? Not familiar with the burden of proof I'm guessing.
Right there on the first few hits there are all that you need - if you can't bother to read them yourself, I'm not going to come over and read them to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
False. If you buy a gun from an FFL (Federal Firearms Licenseholder), then you have to pass a background check.
Again false, because it can easily be privately transferred without going through an FFL. You sound like someone who hasn't bought many guns I am guessing. The Brady Background Check Bill did not apply to private sales at all.
Sigh... Nice summary of federal law here. If you will recall, the defendant and Uncle live in different states. As per the link,
Quote:
e. Outside State of Residency - A person may not receive a HG from a non-licensee who resides in another State, except by:
1) Will or intestate succession, § 922 (a)(5)(A) giver, § 922 (a)(3)(A) receiver, or
2) Temporary loan or rental for lawful sporting purposes, § 922 (a)(5)(B), or
3) The non-resident may send or deliver the HG (see § 1715, HGs non-mailable) to an FFL in the receiver’s State for purchase from the FFL, § 922 (a)(2)(A).
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you could keep up with the conversation as it pertains to this case; guess I assumed too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
It doesn't obstruct any private sale. It only means that if you are purchasing from an FFL, you must be honest on your form that you are the one who intends to possess the gun. Does not affect private sales AT ALL, which DO NOT require a background check.

Why is making it a crime to lie on a federal form under oath asinine? It applies to just about anything else you can name: mortgages, taxes, student loans, anything.
I can only spell it out for you so many times - your refusal to recognize it is your issue. 1. He did NOT lie because he is indeed the 'purchaser'. 2. See the link to the law above because in this case the private sale most certainly DOES require a background check since he will have to go through an FFL - JUST LIKE THEY DID.

Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
It wasn't made explicitly, implicitly, by reference, or even in dicta (look that up), so your failure to demonstrate the claim that you (not me) made, is up to you (not me).
If you truly think that, then you're a dumbass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
I'm not sure what houses of cards you are used to knocking down, but you won't find one here. You seem outraged about the ruling, but do not actually wish to discuss its contents. If that's your goal, make a poster and stand on a street corner or something. And I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to read court opinions and analyze them so I don't really need your approval, thanks.
So yeah, you are indeed a dumbass. Thanks - we are now all on notice. Go play in the corner quietly with the other dumbasses and let the adults carry on. Native, Lane and Cosmos will love to have you.
Posts: 552
Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 02:51 AM   #58
go bowe go bowe is offline
bye bye bo...
 
go bowe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: independence
Casino cash: $9972
awww, man...

why doesn't anybody ever include me with the cool kids?
Posts: 30,459
go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 02:39 PM   #59
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $10416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
So you're still squirming, we get it...

Right there on the first few hits there are all that you need - if you can't bother to read them yourself, I'm not going to come over and read them to you.

Sigh... Nice summary of federal law here. If you will recall, the defendant and Uncle live in different states. As per the link, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you could keep up with the conversation as it pertains to this case; guess I assumed too much.

I can only spell it out for you so many times - your refusal to recognize it is your issue. 1. He did NOT lie because he is indeed the 'purchaser'. 2. See the link to the law above because in this case the private sale most certainly DOES require a background check since he will have to go through an FFL - JUST LIKE THEY DID.

If you truly think that, then you're a dumbass.

So yeah, you are indeed a dumbass. Thanks - we are now all on notice. Go play in the corner quietly with the other dumbasses and let the adults carry on. Native, Lane and Cosmos will love to have you.
Step 1. Make claims about how legal opinion says something different than anyone else with legal training thinks it says.
Step 2. When challenged to show portions of the opinion or analysis of why such a claim is correct, AT ALL COSTS, avoid discussing the actual opinion.
Step 3. Call people dumbasses for not agreeing with your unsupported claim.

Step 4. Pretend you won some kind of prize on a ****ing internet message board.

You think we haven't encountered posters like you before?

It's obvious you can't or won't discuss what you pretended you wanted to discuss, so needless to say, my interest in this exchange with you has faded pretty much completely.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 33,213
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 03:09 PM   #60
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $10416
For the initiated, who are truly interested in this stuff, SCOTUS Blog has the entire oral argument of Riley v. California about cell phone searches. Interesting stuff about remote wiping of data, "faraday sleeves", etc.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_132

__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 33,213
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:36 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.