The Original CZ Forum

GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: JimThornTX on September 25, 2013, 02:38:01 PM

Title: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on September 25, 2013, 02:38:01 PM
Well, it's official. John Kerry signed the ATT today. It now has to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 votes) which I highly doubt will happen. But that doesn't mean we can let our guard down.

http://youtu.be/E77Vv46c1GQ

http://www.guns.com/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-u-n-global-arms-trade-treaty-video/
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Grendel on September 25, 2013, 03:23:22 PM
No treaty, even if ratified, supersedes the Constitution. It will simply be struck down. Lurch's signature isn't worth a pot of warm piss.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: skipper on September 25, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
The late Col. George "Bud: Day could tell you a thing or two about John Kerry.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1235321/posts
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Christophorus on September 27, 2013, 12:24:46 AM
I don't understand this "treaty." Most, if not all, small arms trade originate from the US, Russia, or China, right?
The US Senate will not ratify it. Russia and China abstained from voting/ratifying.
It doesn't seem like anything will change, so what's the point??  O.o

Strangely enough, Iran was chosen as VP of the conference and voted against it? North Korea (which I didn't realize could vote) and Syria voted against it as well.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: 1SOW on September 27, 2013, 12:45:35 AM
Quote
No treaty, even if ratified, supersedes the Constitution. It will simply be struck down. Lurch's signature isn't worth a pot of warm piss.
Man, I hope you are correct.
A new 'edict' of some sort may pop out of the royal chambers,   likely based the latest episodes of shootings in places with weapons bans.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: bobanddog on September 27, 2013, 10:12:02 AM
No treaty, even if ratified, supersedes the Constitution. It will simply be struck down. Lurch's signature isn't worth a pot of warm piss.

Signing treaties without legitimacy is an old habit that's hard to break...
(http://ccs.webcrawler.com/ClickHandler.ashx?du=http%3a%2f%2foffgridsurvival.com%2fwp-content%2fthemes%2fchurch_10%2fimages%2f2013%2f04%2fturninguns.jpg&ru=http%3a%2f%2foffgridsurvival.com%2fwp-content%2fthemes%2fchurch_10%2fimages%2f2013%2f04%2fturninguns.jpg&ld=20130927&ap=2&app=1&c=info.wbcrwl&s=webcrawler&coi=772&cop=main-title&euip=72.160.51.198&npp=2&p=0&pp=0&pvaid=b729961820944c298553230094543135&sid=733632038.3878393379300.1380290114&vid=733632038.3878393379300.1375484079.969&fcoi=417&fcop=topnav&fct.uid=dc3aee2746b3408faf62b7394c8fc8b9&fpid=27&ep=2&mid=9&en=3YDphat8DJ5oIXChIXc4DcsPch7bZx6tZjNf65kGBnrQDGWu03ZheA%3d%3d&hash=AE4800506A185942A3E97B656C37FBBE)
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on September 27, 2013, 01:18:36 PM
Canada refuses to sign the treaty....at least for now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/25/arms-trade-treaty-canada-harper_n_3989587.html

I can't help but think the USA would not have signed the treaty if we had a pro-gun Conservative administration running things in DC.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: PJM on September 27, 2013, 10:05:06 PM
Careful, Jimmy. When I posted this the thread was shut down:

 "we, as gun owners, should keep an eye on this and be concerned that our politicians may find a circuitous and devious way to implement all or parts of the UN Treaty on gun regulation.

I was called names: a scaremonger and a tin-hat person.  Well, here it is knocking at our door again. 

Call me names if you like but I reaffirm that it is worthy of our watchful eye."
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Skookum on September 27, 2013, 10:31:43 PM
Careful, Jimmy. When I posted this the thread was shut down ? .

No shortage of enablers of the modern liberal-progressive cause, even in the gunowner community.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: 1SOW on September 27, 2013, 11:22:19 PM
Quote
It now has to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 votes) which I highly doubt will happen
When the recent vote in the Senate combined the ACA with the U.S. budget using cloture, a simple majority is all that's necessary for both to pass.
Just reiterating that there may be ways to force-feed unwanted bills through the system.
I'm thinking of shopping for a "Made in the USA"   tin hat.
Stay vigilant.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: bozwell on September 27, 2013, 11:30:23 PM
Quote
It now has to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 votes) which I highly doubt will happen
When the recent vote in the Senate combined the ACA with the U.S. budget using cloture, a simple majority is all that's necessary for both to pass.
Just reiterating that there may be ways to force-feed unwanted bills through the system.
I'm thinking of shopping for a "Made in the USA"   tin hat.
Stay vigilant.

No offense, but ACA and our current budget have nothing to do with treaty ratification, and you simply can't ratify a treaty with a simple majority.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: 1SOW on September 27, 2013, 11:53:02 PM
I acknowledge that.  The point is that there may be techniical ways to circumvent the "normal" way to do business.  It does sound like I'm becoming a pessimist, but current events are giving reason for that.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: IDescribe on September 28, 2013, 12:31:40 AM
If we had voted against it with Syria, North Korea, and Iran, or even if we had abstained with Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba, I know I'd hold my head higher.   ::)
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 21, 2013, 12:32:12 AM
With Scalia's written verbiage in Heller that he and the majority believe the States still have the right to regulate open carry and concealed carry, it is intuitive that the States also have the right whether or not to register and track ownership.

Ergo, this treaty, even if ratified by the Senate, which is highly unlikely for 2/3rd's (since Demo's barely have a majority alone), as Widge said, would be ruled unconstitutional by the present US Supreme Court if it were to be used by the White House to force the States to do anything.

Comrades, I already live in the CCP of Kaliforniya, and here they register and track.  That's not a big problem, unless some wacko mayor like Nagin in New Orleans tries to go around and round up guns again.

The bigger problem is when jurisdictions like DC, Chicago, and California de facto administratively prevent your personal carrying of your defense firearm on your person legally.  That's what I wish the NRA would attack in the US Supreme Court about.

Not sure what the NRA is waiting for ???
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on October 21, 2013, 09:48:29 PM
Ergo, this treaty, even if ratified by the Senate, which is highly unlikely for 2/3rd's (since Demo's barely have a majority alone), as Widge said, would be ruled unconstitutional by the present US Supreme Court...

We all thought Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional, too.

Quote
Not sure what the NRA is waiting for ???

They're probably waiting for the next anti-gun RINO to step up and run for President (Chris Christie?) so they can endorse him just like they endorsed Mitt "Massachusetts AWB" Romney.  ::)
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 21, 2013, 09:52:35 PM
Ergo, this treaty, even if ratified by the Senate, which is highly unlikely for 2/3rd's (since Demo's barely have a majority alone), as Widge said, would be ruled unconstitutional by the present US Supreme Court...

We all thought Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional, too.

Quote
Not sure what the NRA is waiting for ???

They're probably waiting for the next anti-gun RINO to step up and run for President (Chris Christie?) so they can endorse him just like they endorsed Mitt "Massachusetts AWB" Romney.  ::)

I myself never thought ObamaCare was unconstitutional -- it is simply a direct tax based on health care coverage -- new but not necessarily unconstitutional.

And Christie may be anti gun, but at least he would appoint strict constructionist US Supreme Court justices.  Unfortunately Hillary probably would not.

A lot of people across the USA are anti-gun, some anti-handgun and others anti-tactical rifle.  The anti-tactical rifle battle has yet to be fought in the courts somewhere.

Fortunately Heller protects handguns, at least for now.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on October 21, 2013, 10:01:46 PM
I myself never thought ObamaCare was unconstitutional -- it is simply a direct tax based on health care coverage -- new but not necessarily unconstitutional.

It is simply the federal government FORCING every single American citizen to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can AFFORD it or not. That is the epitome of unconstitutionality. And one of the most Conservative judges, John Roberts, appointed by the equally Conservative President George W. Bush, gave in to political correctness and made the wrong decision.

Quote
And Christie may be anti gun, but at least he would appoint strict constructionist US Supreme Court justices.  Unfortunately Hillary probably would not.

And you can can guarantee that? Chris Christie would only nominate someone that would pass Senate confirmation. And that would depend on the make-up of the Senate at the time of confirmation. I also highly doubt Chris Christie would nominate someone more Conservative than he is, even if that person could pass Senate confirmation. Chris Christie would just nominate a Moderate at best. Same as Hillary would do.

BTW - as a gun owner, would you seriously vote for an anti-gun candidate just because they have an "R" at the end of their name?  That's the problem with the GOP today. Too many people settling for Moderate RINO's instead of demanding strict Constitutional Conservative "TEA party" candidates like Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 21, 2013, 10:08:37 PM
I myself never thought ObamaCare was unconstitutional -- it is simply a direct tax based on health care coverage -- new but not necessarily unconstitutional.

It is simply the federal government FORCING every single American citizen to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can AFFORD it or not. That is the epitome of unconstitutionality. And one of the most Conservative judges, John Roberts, appointed by the equally Conservative President George W. Bush, gave in to political correctness and made the wrong decision.

Quote
And Christie may be anti gun, but at least he would appoint strict constructionist US Supreme Court justices.  Unfortunately Hillary probably would not.

And you can can guarantee that? Chris Christie would only nominate someone that would pass Senate confirmation. And that would depend on the make-up of the Senate at the time of confirmation. I also highly doubt Chris Christie would nominate someone more Conservative than he is, even if that person could pass Senate confirmation. Chris Christie would just nominate a Moderate at best. Same as Hillary would do.

ObamaCare is just a disguised, earmarked tax hike based on medical insurance coverage.  If you have your own medical insurance, you are not affected.  If you don't, then you are forced, or taxed, to be more specific.  Simply a political decision based on either guns or butter.  This is butter.  R = guns.  D = butter.  Nothing new about that.

I would love to see whom Christie appoints to the Court.  I would trust that Justice more than Hillary's.

The T Party is way ahead of their times.  Nobody else is ready for a Federal bankruptcy resulting from freezing the debt limit.  And a government shutdown for a long period of several years is also hard to stomach.  The T Party should simply live with ObamaCare for now, even though it may become expensive.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: bozwell on October 21, 2013, 10:43:03 PM
We're getting off on a tangent, the big surprise wasn't that "ObamaCare" was constitutional, but rather they didn't use the commerce clause to uphold it.   "ObamaCare" is no different than social security, Medicare, and all the other government programs we have no choice but to pay for.

Ultimately, it works out as a tax, and one I personally wish we didn't have.  If people can't afford it, let them do without rather than siphon off free healthcare from the taxpayers when their lack of insurance catches up with them down the road.  But then again, I personally wish we'd stop handing out as much free medical care as we do, as I dislike paying for it on top of my own insurance.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Grendel on October 21, 2013, 11:08:49 PM
Lets get this back on track please folks. Obamacare has nothing to do with the RKBA.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 21, 2013, 11:32:29 PM
Lets get this back on track please folks. Obamacare has nothing to do with the RKBA.

Christie is more likely to appoint justices who support the RKBA than is Hillary.

If only ever so slightly.

 ;D
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Skookum on October 22, 2013, 02:03:20 AM
With Scalia's written verbiage in Heller that he and the majority believe the States still have the right to regulate open carry and concealed carry ? .

Heller is silent on the topic of open carry, properly so, because the issue was not before the court:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

In WA open carry is allowed, but, per RCW 9.41.250), "[e]very person who ? [f]urtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon ? is guilty of a gross misdemeanor ? ."  My Concealed Pistol License allows me to carry my CZs concealed or openly, but I can carry my Glock 'n Gut ? (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/images/glockngut.gif) ? only openly.  I don't mind that too much, because pocket carrying my Glock 'n Gut is hard on my wardrobe.


Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on October 23, 2013, 12:21:09 AM
Christie is more likely to appoint justices who support the RKBA than is Hillary.

Christie is anti-gun. That is enough to keep me from voting for him. Just like I didn't vote for the anti-gun Mitt Romney. I will just keep voting Libertarian until the GOP wakes up and kicks out the RINOs.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 23, 2013, 05:49:01 AM
Christie is more likely to appoint justices who support the RKBA than is Hillary.

Christie is anti-gun. That is enough to keep me from voting for him. Just like I didn't vote for the anti-gun Mitt Romney. I will just keep voting Libertarian until the GOP wakes up and kicks out the RINOs.

Just because they draw the line short of semi-auto tactical rifles does NOT mean they are anti-gun.

Feinstein is anti-gun.

Pelosi is anti-gun.

THAT'S what anti-gun means.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on October 26, 2013, 02:45:50 AM
Just because they draw the line short of semi-auto tactical rifles does NOT mean they are anti-gun.

THAT'S what anti-gun means.

Anti-gun means ANYONE that is AGAINST private American citizens owning ANY type of firearm. Period. Feinstein and Pelosi are obviously more radical than Christie and Romney, but they are ALL anti-gunners because they DO NOT support the 2nd Amendment 100%.

I'm afraid your judgement has been clouded by drinking too much Kaliforia Kool-Aid. People like you are why we have Chris Christie and Mitt Romney in the GOP in the first place. Moderate RINOs slowly eroding away our 2nd Amendment rights, one firearm at a time.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Grendel on October 26, 2013, 03:06:25 AM
Just because they draw the line short of semi-auto tactical rifles does NOT mean they are anti-gun.

THAT'S what anti-gun means.

Anti-gun means ANYONE that is AGAINST private American citizens owning ANY type of firearm. Period. Feinstein and Pelosi are obviously more radical than Christie and Romney, but they are ALL anti-gunners because they DO NOT support the 2nd Amendment 100%.

I'm afraid your judgement has been clouded by drinking too much Kaliforia Kool-Aid. People like you are why we have Chris Christie and Mitt Romney in the GOP in the first place. Moderate RINOs slowly eroding away our 2nd Amendment rights, one firearm at a time.

You made your point in the first paragraph. The second was unnecessary. I will not warn people again about ad hominem posts.

The next person to post one gets a week off.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 26, 2013, 04:09:46 PM
Anti-gun means ANYONE that is AGAINST private American citizens owning ANY type of firearm. Period. Feinstein and Pelosi are obviously more radical than Christie and Romney, but they are ALL anti-gunners because they DO NOT support the 2nd Amendment 100%...

The only state that I know of which allows the ownership of belt fed fully automatic machine guns is Kentucky.  Not even Texas goes that far.

So "ANY type of firearm" is only valid in Kentucky.

ALL the other 49 states and DC draw a line somewhere.  Scalia even alludes to this in his write-up in Heller.

He calls the weapons that cross that line "destructive devices" and specifically mentions sawed-off shotguns.

Since a sawed-off shotgun is ANY type firearm, it appears that Scalia disagrees with the "ANY type" notion.

As do I.  I agree with Scalia.  There is a line and it should be drawn.

I'm glad he at least gave protection under the 2nd Amendment to semi-auto pistols specifically because of their popularity in America.  As his write-up is limited to Heller's case in DC, he did not elaborate any further, regarding all the other questions out there on 2A, namely (1) semi-auto rifles, (2) semi-auto shotguns, (3) high caliber rifles of .50 or more, etc.

Heller only scratches the surface.  There will need to be plenty more judicial review, eventually.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on October 27, 2013, 12:16:42 AM
The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Keep means own, bear means carry unaided. That's it. The only restriction to firearm ownership our Founding Fathers intended was to firearms that one could not carry by himself unaided.

Now, if the Federal government wanted to further restrict firearms ownership beyond simply what one could bear unaided, they should have done so the correct way, via Constitutional amendment. Just like they did when they wanted to stop everyone from drinking alcohol. They didn't just pass a law prohibiting alcohol, they amended the Constitution making alcohol illegal.

Our Founding Fathers used muskets for hunting and for self-defense. Today, American citizens use semi-auto AR15 and the semi-auto AK47 and other semi-auto magazine-fed rifles for the same purpose, hunting and self-defense. The law does not automatically change just because technology changes.

You are entitled to your opinions. Just like I am entitled to my opinions. And I will call anyone that is against my right to own any type of firearm I can bear an anti-gunner. Especially people that are against semi-auto magazine-fed rifles like Mitt Romney that enacted a state-level "assault weapons" ban on the good people of Massachusetts in 2004 because he knew the Federal ban would not be renewed that year (and with the blessing of the NRA, which is why I don't trust them, either).
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Grendel on October 27, 2013, 12:20:01 AM
Quote
Our Founding Fathers used muskets for hunting and for self-defense. Today, American citizens use semi-auto AR15 and the semi-auto AK47 and other semi-auto magazine-fed rifles for the same purpose, hunting and self-defense. The law does not automatically change just because technology changes.

+1.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 27, 2013, 12:36:15 AM
The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Keep means own, bear means carry unaided. That's it. The only restriction to firearm ownership our Founding Fathers intended was to firearms that one could not carry by himself unaided.

Now, if the Federal government wanted to further restrict firearms ownership beyond simply what one could bear unaided, they should have done so the correct way, via Constitutional amendment. Just like they did when they wanted to stop everyone from drinking alcohol. They didn't just pass a law prohibiting alcohol, they amended the Constitution making alcohol illegal.

Our Founding Fathers used muskets for hunting and for self-defense. Today, American citizens use semi-auto AR15 and the semi-auto AK47 and other semi-auto magazine-fed rifles for the same purpose, hunting and self-defense. The law does not automatically change just because technology changes.

You are entitled to your opinions. Just like I am entitled to my opinions. And I will call anyone that is against my right to own any type of firearm I can bear an anti-gunner. Especially people that are against semi-auto magazine-fed rifles like Mitt Romney that enacted a state-level "assault weapons" ban on the good people of Massachusetts in 2004 because he knew the Federal ban would not be renewed that year (and with the blessing of the NRA, which is why I don't trust them, either).

Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

Funny thing though, their opinions are more important and relevant than yours or mine.

You can check out their opinions and dissents here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

... Quite a far cry from "quite clear."
 ;D
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on October 27, 2013, 12:48:44 AM
Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

The SCOTUS is supposed to "interpret" the written law, i.e. the Constitution, not give personal opinion on it.

Again, the Constitution is clearly written. It's intentions are quite clear. It's the government, the lawyers, and the Supreme Court, that unfortunately can't see the forest for the trees. They let feelings and emotions and beliefs control their actions. And the end result is the further erosion of our 2A rights. One law and one court decision at a time.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 27, 2013, 01:14:08 AM
Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

The SCOTUS is supposed to "interpret" the written law, i.e. the Constitution, not give personal opinion on it.

Again, the Constitution is clearly written. It's intentions are quite clear. It's the government, the lawyers, and the Supreme Court, that unfortunately can't see the forest for the trees. They let feelings and emotions and beliefs control their actions. And the end result is the further erosion of our 2A rights. One law and one court decision at a time.

How do you logically distinguish between "interpreting the written law" and "give personal opinion on it"?

If you read what they say in their opinions and dissents, they are clearing stating what they believe the law says.

For 4 of them, they believe this is all about militia duty, which they now believe has been superseded and is no longer relevant.

That's all the minority is saying.

And the 5 on the majority are saying they believe militia service has nothing at all to do with the right to defend yourself IN YOUR HOME.

And even Scalia says the States have the power to regulate Open or Concealed Carry as they see fit.

That's how they are "interpreting" the law in light of the history around the law.

Ergo I really really hope Christie gets elected the next time around, as President, so he can appoint "less liberal" USSC justices when several of these we have now retire.

Pray for Chris Christie.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: bozwell on October 27, 2013, 01:18:14 AM
Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

The SCOTUS is supposed to "interpret" the written law, i.e. the Constitution, not give personal opinion on it.

Again, the Constitution is clearly written. It's intentions are quite clear. It's the government, the lawyers, and the Supreme Court, that unfortunately can't see the forest for the trees. They let feelings and emotions and beliefs control their actions. And the end result is the further erosion of our 2A rights. One law and one court decision at a time.

You can't write a legal opinion without having an opinion.  Saying justices on the SC shouldn't have opinions about the Constitution is saying they shouldn't do their job.  While I have my own opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted, SCOTUS has been reviewing laws in view of the Constitution and interpreting those seemingly simple words for centuries.  It's silly to ignore the fact that reasonable minds can disagree on numerous areas of the Constitution (and have been disagreeing for centuries).  Moreover, you're doing just what you say SCOTUS shouldn't do - giving an opinion and with no citation to back it up for that matter.  Whether you disagree with them or not, the justices at least provide ample support for their positions when they write their opinions.  Now if they start saying "it's clearly written, quite clear, and you other justices are just emotional sissies" - then we have a reason to complain about SCOTUS giving "opinions". 

For that matter, trivializing the opinions of people who disagree with you as having "minds clouded by feelings and emotions" is basically just a cop out and is the same sort of straw man argument/personal attack that is so rampant in today's society.  Law is full of disagreement, and one thing lawyers (hopefully) learn to do is disagree civilly.  I don't understand why people can't state their opinion and leave it at that... but there's definitely a pattern these days of people stating their opinion, followed by personal attack/straw man argument for good measure.  Then again, it's legal debate by laymen on the Internet, so I don't know why I should expect more.

In any event, the word opinion isn't some tainted word, especially in the context of the Supreme Court.  Hell, the documents they issue announcing their holding on a particular case are formally known as opinions. 
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: IDescribe on October 27, 2013, 02:37:27 AM
2A is not cut and dry and absolute to its broadest possible meanings.  That might be scary to some people, but it is what it is.  People rightfully focus on the latter half of the amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But when they start to define words to talk about what that clause means, it seems to be 'bear' and 'arms' that are the usual words people feel need to be clarified.  But there's another important word there -- infringe.  Infringe means to break or violate.   That leaves room for judicial interpretation.  What constitutes a right being broken?  If I legally own a variety of small arms, but I am barred from owning one particular class of small arms, has my right to own small arms been broken?  Or has it been limited?  Is limiting a right the same as breaking it?  Maybe it is.  We can make the argument that limiting a right is breaking a right, but that doesn't mean SCOTUS will agree with our argument.  And I want to be clear here -- this is not my arguing for any of this.  This is my pointing out that the room for a range of interpretation exists in the language, and the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority/responsibility to interpret it.  Would they agree by majority that any limitation at all constitutes breaking that right?  They haven't with other rights. 

Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: JimThornTX on October 28, 2013, 11:57:00 PM
How do you logically distinguish between "interpreting the written law" and "give personal opinion on it"?

For 4 of them, they believe this is all about militia duty, which they now believe has been superseded and is no longer relevant.

And the 5 on the majority are saying they believe militia service has nothing at all to do with the right to defend yourself IN YOUR HOME.

Exactly my point. For decades SCOTUS decisions have been made right down the middle based on political ideology. If the judges were truly impartial, and if they read and interpreted the law as it's clearly written, the decisions would be unanimous.

Quote
And even Scalia says the States have the power to regulate Open or Concealed Carry as they see fit.

Which is wrong on his part because the 2A is quite clear on no infringement of the bearing of arms. By my not being allowed to bear arms in an open-carry fashion if I choose to, my 2A rights are being infringed.

Quote
Ergo I really really hope Christie gets elected the next time around...

That much is painfully obvious. As long as the GOP continues to nominate Moderate establishment RINO's for President, the GOP will continue to lose elections. The Libertarian wing and TEA Party wing of the GOP is here to stay. And we will not rest until we purge the GOP of Moderates, RINO's, and the spineless cowards that continue to give in to the irrational demands of the Socialist Democratic Party.

Quote
Pray for Chris Christie.

I pray he loses his Governor election. NJ is a blue state, let the Dems have it. That way Christie will fade away into obscurity and we can then look forward to nominating a real Conservative for President like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Mad Macs on October 29, 2013, 08:06:23 AM
That much is painfully obvious. As long as the GOP continues to nominate Moderate establishment RINO's for President, the GOP will continue to lose elections. The Libertarian wing and TEA Party wing of the GOP is here to stay. And we will not rest until we purge the GOP of Moderates, RINO's, and the spineless cowards that continue to give in to the irrational demands of the Socialist Democratic Party.


Libertarians have their faults too.  They pick and choose the civil liberties they want to uphold.  They think that people should be left to starve if they can't afford to feed themselves, yet have no problem inserting themselves into a uterus to protect the unborn.  That doesn't make any sense.

Also, don't confuse "Socialism" with "people should be treated the same".  Civil liberties don't make us a socialist country.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: bozwell on October 29, 2013, 09:19:29 AM
That much is painfully obvious. As long as the GOP continues to nominate Moderate establishment RINO's for President, the GOP will continue to lose elections. The Libertarian wing and TEA Party wing of the GOP is here to stay. And we will not rest until we purge the GOP of Moderates, RINO's, and the spineless cowards that continue to give in to the irrational demands of the Socialist Democratic Party.


Libertarians have their faults too.  They pick and choose the civil liberties they want to uphold.  They think that people should be left to starve if they can't afford to feed themselves, yet have no problem inserting themselves into a uterus to protect the unborn.  That doesn't make any sense.

Also, don't confuse "Socialism" with "people should be treated the same".  Civil liberties don't make us a socialist country.

No offense Macs, but I don't think you understand the Libertarian position on abortion.  This is evidenced by the fact you have the LP's position on the issue backwards.  While they don't weigh in on the moral issue of abortion, the official party platform and the view of most Libertarians is that government should be kept out of the issue and it's up to the individuals to make the decision as to whether it's right to have an abortion. 
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Grendel on October 29, 2013, 09:29:12 AM
Back on topic please. No more discussion of abortion, either pro or anti. If you can't keep to the point, which is, lest we forget, this UN Treaty signed by Lurch, the thread is going away.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: AdamSmith22134 on October 29, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
It's funny how minds can wander far off topic.

Treaties are for the conduct of business OUTSIDE the nation not WITHIN the nation.

Ergo anyone paranoid enough to fear that a treaty is going to affect their gun rights at home is ... well ... r e a l l y   p a r a n o i d.
Title: Re: John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today
Post by: Skookum on October 29, 2013, 08:02:07 PM
Treaties are for the conduct of business OUTSIDE the nation not WITHIN the nation.

Many treaties affect the conduct of business within our nation ? e.g., treaties with Indian tribes, extradition treaties.

Per Wikipedia:

In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.  ?  For example, a treaty may prohibit states from imposing capital punishment on foreign nationals ? .