 
Tkshreve
Member
Username: Tkshreve
Post Number: 189
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 4:22 pm: |    |
no ^ |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 131
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 4:36 pm: | |
"I wonder if Lilpup, Detroitrise, etc. actually live
in the city, and, if they do, do they have ANY common sense or intelligence?"
If you've haven't been hiding under a rock during my rants, you would know tha tI live WITHIN city limits. All of my time within city limits, I have never encountered nothing more than one break-in and one property theft. I just feel differently over the whole issues than the rest of you all. |
Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly
Post Number: 38
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:05 pm: | |
Yeah, the people mean the people in Parker. However, its not a United States Supreme Court case. Quilici is.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Supreme court rulings set the precedent.
•••END OF STORY••• |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2256
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:10 pm: | |
Detroitsuperfly:
"If you understood the Supreme court rulings, they state outside the militia you have no constitutional right. "
You haven't posted a Supreme Court ruling because there isn't one on this issue. You posted a 6th circuit court of appeals case, which applies only to the federal 6th circuit. Quilici is a 7th circuit case that only applies to the 7th circuit for which the Supreme Court denied to grant certiorari
"Actually, thejesus, I also referenced a USSC case that says pretty much the same thing."
No, you didn't. See above.
"And Parker doesnt apply. Thanks for trying though.Parker is a lower court ruling, vs Quilici being a USSC ruling."
Again, Parker is a D.C. Circuit court of appeals case that applies to the D.C. Circuit, just as the Warrin case you posted is a 6th circuit case that applies to the 6th circuit (which includes MI).
All the Supreme Court did in Quilici is decline to hear the case, which means the ruling stands but is only applicable to the 7th circuit.
Furthermore, that was the 1976 Supreme Court that declined to resolve the split among the various circuits. Many leagal experts expect that the 2007 Supreme Court will grant certiorari to Parker.
If that happens, then and only then there be a universal interpretation that applies to all the federal circuits. |
Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly
Post Number: 39
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:16 pm: | |
The USSC upheld Quilcy and stated that bans on firearms are not unconstitutional. By not hearing it, it affirmed that banning firearms does not violate the constitution.
If there was a clear violation of the 2nd amendment by banning weapons, they would have heard it.
This is why there are MANY cities in America with comprehensive weapons bans and they stand.
Why do they refuse to hear them? Miller 1939 set the standard. You have no constitutional right to own a gun.
Now whatever you imagine will happen in the future with Parker, its still your imagination. Not real world encompassing. Lets talk about reality, not your crystal ball predictions.
(Message edited by detroitsuperfly on September 30, 2007) |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2257
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:27 pm: | |
Detroitsuperfly:
Declining to hear a case is NOT the same as affirming it.
When the Supreme Court hears a case, it's almost always because its necessary to resolve a split among the courts of appeals...
It takes 4 justices to agree to hear a case in order for it to be appealed to the Supreme Court. All that can be inferred from their decision not to grant certiorari means is that in 1976, there were not 4 justices who wanted to resolve the split among the circuits, and there are many reasons why the court might decline to do this
Had they affirmed the case, then the USSC's affirmation would apply to all the federal circuits, i.e., the entire country.
However, they did not do that. that is why, as things stand today, you DO have a constitutional right as an individual to own a gun if you live in the D.C. circuit but NOT if you live in the 6th circuit.
Now, the latest development concerning the split among the circuits is that the Parker case was appealed to the Supreme Court. They may or may not decide to hear it, but if they do, THEN AND ONLY THEN will there be a rule that applies universally throughout the country...
P.S. Can someone else with knowledge of the federal court system please jump in and confirm what I'm saying. This isn't exactly layman's knowledge, which is why I'm taking it easy on Detroitsuperfly for his failure to understand how this works...but apparently he won't take my word for it. |
Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly
Post Number: 40
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:31 pm: | |
"Declining to hear a case is NOT the same as affirming it. "
Indeed it IS! The USSC states by not hearing it that they see no constitutional problems with the law. You accept the validity of the law by not overturning it. Its EXACTLY the same result had they voted in favor of it.
The USSC can operate the way you state, and many times does, but doesn't always. That isnt their purpose.
"you DO have a constitutional right as an individual to own a gun"
Miller 39 disagrees with you.
If you are correct, why then have comprehensive municipal bans on firearms withheld constitutionality?
(Message edited by detroitsuperfly on September 30, 2007)
(Message edited by detroitsuperfly on September 30, 2007) |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:42 pm: | |
Just a few words based on my experiences.
Sometimes, the "bad guys" get shot. People defend themselves and the assailant's life ends in a hail of gunfire and a puddle of blood.
Despite the fact that the potential victim did not get victimized, we should resist thinking of what happened as a "victory."
It is a failure. It is a failure of our larger society to prevent the brutal act -- though the other person effectively stopped it.
And another thing: Killing somebody isn't easy. Even when justified, the person who defends himself has to live with that act for the rest of his life, and that's not easy either. Ask that person if, in his heart of hearts, it wasn't a greater failure that it went down that way. Sometimes, you get answers that butt up against "popular wisdom."
Finally, this: Those who are quick to jump to the front and proclaim this a victory remind me of a guy named Curtis Sliwa. The "Guardian Angels" movement was this New Yorker's baby. He cozied up to Law And Order politicians, and was always the first to say that society and the justice system should deal harshly with criminals.
Sliwa was able to get an emotional reaction out of people about crime. No tactic was too over-the-top. No dramatization of the issue was too much. He even staged his own kidnapping to give the issue more press. By the time I was living in New York, Sliwa had been largely discredited, though he was working hard to rehabilitate his credibility.
Was this guy within his rights to defend himself? Sure.
Is it heartening to hear that, sometimes, criminals don't always get away with the crime? Sure.
But beware those who are quick to say this is how our problems should be solved. Where in high school civics did it say that justice comes out of the barrel of a gun? The lynch-mob mentality must be resisted somehow. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2258
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:43 pm: | |
Detroitsuperfly:
We're not having a debate here. I'm telling you how it is. You are simply wrong, sir.
When a circuit court of appeals makes a ruling, the ruling only applies to the states that are included in THAT CIRCUIT...
For example, this is why when the 9th Circuit court of appeals ruled it was unconstitutional for public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class, the ruling only applied to the states that included in THAT CIRCUIT.
Now, when the US Supreme Court refuses to hear a particular case from one of the circuits, the ruling in THAT PARTICULAR CASE stands, however, cases in other circuits that have decided the issue a different way remain undisturbed...
So again, all the Quicilli case means is that the 1976 Supreme Court decided NOT to resolve the different interpretations among the various circuits...
Now, there is an appeal pending on the same issue from the D.C. Circuit (Parker). If the Supreme Court declines to hear THAT case, then THAT ruling will stand and remain applicable to the D.C. CIrcuit....however, it will not disturb the rulings of the other circuits....
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court this year decides to hear the Parker case, THEN AND ONLY THEN, I repeat, THEN AND ONLY THEN will there be a rule that is applicable to the entire country....
whew....ok, I'm done educating this guy...please, someone jump in here and confirm what I'm saying... :D |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:48 pm: | |
"Its EXACTLY the same result had they voted in favor of it. "
UGH!••• No it isn't. If they had affirmed it, then the ruling would apply to the rest of the country and the D.C. Circuit court of appeals would have been bound by that ruling in Parker. But they didn't affirm it. they merely decided to leave it undisturbed
"If you are correct, why then have comprehensive municipal bans on firearms withheld constitutionality? "
They don't, if the federal courts of that circuit say so.
The District of Columbia had such a law, and it was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the Parker case...but again, the Parker case only applied to the D.C. Circuit and nowhere else.
(Message edited by thejesus on September 30, 2007) |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3172
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:48 pm: | |
quote:The lynch-mob mentality must be resisted somehow.
I think that is a bit of an over-dramatization. People refusing to be victims by defending themselves is not a lynch mob. If anything the mob are the criminals ruining the city. Of course it doesn't feel good to kill someone but it is still better to be alive. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:56 pm: | |
Somebody defending themselves is not a lynch mob, of course. But that's not what I'm taking issue with. What I'm taking issue with is people calling this a victory, or using it to illustrate how all crime should be dealt with: Quick, extrajudicial execution. That's where the lynch-mob mentality comes in. |
Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan
Post Number: 823
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:02 pm: | |
quote:If you are correct, why then have comprehensive municipal bans on firearms withheld constitutionality?
The Supreme Court will decide that in 2008. Remember, the Supreme Court upheld racial segregation BEFORE deciding to prohibit it decades later in a reversal decision. While I may not have a "crystal ball", I think you know as well as I just how this new Supreme Court will rule on the DC gun ban appeal. "Miller 39" will be forgotten history one year from now, bet on it.
BTW, Washington DC sure does have a lot of murders for a city without handguns.
And besides, this is getting away from the point. I'd like to see even ONE piece of hard evidence that allowing citizens to carry guns in any way increases the violent crime rate or the murder rate or the number of shootings. The National Academy of Science (the nation's foremost presence on matters of science and learning) did a review of all the available research and data on CCW laws nationwide and found them to have NO EFFECT on crime, murders, or shootings. That is, they did not reduce them and they did not raise them. So why are you and so many others so vehemently opposed to a law that has been conclusively PROVEN to not harm society in any way whatsoever? What is so fucking bad about CCW laws? Can you give any real reason why you oppose them, based on facts and not fear-mongering emotional rhetoric based on personal biases? It's been six years since Michigan adopted shall-issue CCW, over 150,000 Michigan citizens have carry permits, and NOT ONE innocent bystander has ever been shot by a permit holder attempting to defend themselves from a criminal. NOT ONE. But this year alone, THREE permit-holders have successfully defended themselves from armed robbers in public. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2260
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:06 pm: | |
"But that's not what I'm taking issue with. What I'm taking issue with is people calling this a victory"
It is a victory. It's a perfect example of how the "Stand your ground" law was intended to work,
The guy from troy did nothing wrong, wasn't asking for trouble. Given the location near the casino where this happened, my guess is he just came downtown for a night of entertainment in the D. The idiot who robbed him was the one asking for trouble, and once he decided to carjack the guy, the situation from that point could not have gone any better than it did. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:12 pm: | |
Shame on you, Thejesus. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2261
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:15 pm: | |
unbelievable that you have more sympathy for the carjacker than the victim...shame on you...
you and your neighbor's tolerance for that kind of behavior is exactly why this stuff takes place in your city on a daily basis, so in a sense, I suppose you get what you deserve |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hahaha. As usual, when faced with somebody who disagrees with you, you construct a straw man ("you have more sympathy for the carjacker than the victim") and dramatically tear it apart. How very satisfying for you.
Shame on you for seeing this as a victory. And more's the pity for our society.
PS -- For a guy who can't stop quoting the law chapter and verse, you've practically has a spontaneous orgasm over how this "bad guy" has been dispatched without a whiff of due process or jurisprudence. |
Rjk
Member
Username: Rjk
Post Number: 886
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:28 pm: | |
Come on, you're not being serious are you?
This guy is being carjacked by four people, one with a gun and you're bringing up due process?
I'm kind of hoping you're trying to pull someone's leg with your responses. I'd hate to think that there are people who think that way. Of course I know better.
(Message edited by rjk on September 30, 2007) |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2263
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:29 pm: | |
"PS -- For a guy who can't stop quoting the law chapter and verse, you've practically has a spontaneous orgasm over how this "bad guy" has been dispatched without a whiff of due process or jurisprudence."
That's because there's a LAW that says this guy was in the wrong and the victim was perfectly justified in dispatching him.
Here, let me quote the chapter and verse for you. Enjoy.
780.972
Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual. |
Tkshreve
Member
Username: Tkshreve
Post Number: 190
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:41 pm: | |
Sorry to the families losing a relative. They did nothing to provoke their loss. That is the only condolence i have for the death.
quote-
"the situation from that point could not have gone any better than it did."
I agree. If you had to pick............ who would you decide gets shot? DN/DR.... who do you pick?? 95% someone is going to be shot in a situation like that. Pick your pony.
quote-
"What I'm taking issue with is people calling this a victory"
How would you view the situation if (hypothetically) this attacker went out and did the same thing the very next night? An extremely possible situation I would think...... SO, instead of two carjackings - 2 possible shooting victims, we have only 1 deceased criminal. Is that not a victory in a way? Preventing criminal acts is a victory. It is what most politicians have embodied into their platforms when they run for local seats in government. Victory over crime.
Do you not think that there was celebration when Hitler was pronounced dead? Is that not a victory over crime in history??? |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:50 pm: | |
Yes, TK, one man fended off an attacker. A crime was prevented.
But is it a "victory" as you say?
Will this man celebrate this victory with his family? Will they go off to Bennigan's and buy a round of drinks and have a merry time? Will the people who had to wipe the blood off Beaubien do it with a smile? Will the undertaker do a little jig before stitching the body back together for the funeral? Will the FBI put a little smiley face next to this manslaughter in their report for the year? What kind of "victory" is this?
Why must it be regarded as a failure? Because the moment we begin to cheer on vigilantism, to advocate that it is a "victory" to shoot people in the street, we are no better than the criminals we ostensibly detest. That's my point. |
Tkshreve
Member
Username: Tkshreve
Post Number: 191
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:53 pm: | |
DN said: "PS -- For a guy who can't stop quoting the law chapter and verse, you've practically has a spontaneous orgasm over how this "bad guy" has been dispatched without a whiff of due process or jurisprudence."
TJ said: That's because there's a LAW that says this guy was in the wrong and the victim was perfectly justified in dispatching him.
DN: Interesting to who you think are the judge and jury for that night. Four individuals approached an innocent civilian and ruled that his own possessions did not belong to him anymore. And a jury of the judges peers all concurred. Force was going to be used to enforce this ruling handed down to an innocent man who was inaccurately tried. Talk about jurisprudence.
TJ - it's the system and those are the laws. Play by the rules and there should be no remorse to be had. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 134
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:56 pm: | |
Yes Detroitnerd, that was my general point. The Innocent people taking the stand of vigilantism does nothing to better to better society. Violence will always breed violence. I don't understand why you people think violence is the only way to solve problem when it's really not. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:59 pm: | |
TK: Maybe I am obtuse, but I don't see your point. Sorry. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3174
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:05 pm: | |
Again, the guy wasn't looking to get car-jacked. I am sure he would have preferred to drive home in peace. He was put in a situation where is was him or them. Based on the possible outcomes, his actions were justified.
All of your platitudes about "violence is not the answer" don't apply here. The assailant in this case was not looking for a constructive way to solve a problem.
I really don't understand all of this mis-directed resentment towards the guy from Troy and those that defend his right to defend himself. Your anger should be directed at the scumbags who are willing to kill someone for a few dollars and are ruining the city for everyone. |
Tkshreve
Member
Username: Tkshreve
Post Number: 192
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:06 pm: | |
That is very rich and witty DN, thank you for the laugh. Really.
To answer your very repetitive questions with a single one...... no..... I do not believe any of that kind of "celebration took place.
Perhaps the way you microscopically analyze the crime in our region is what fosters your caring and innocent opinions. I really think you are missing the fact that there is a war on crime being waged for some time now. In these battles against crime, there has to be a victory or the war will never conclude.
This was a battle. And our side declares victory against crime in this battle. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2264
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:06 pm: | |
"I don't understand why you people think violence is the only way to solve problem when it's really not."
I don't believe it's the only way to solve the problem. Getting these morons to stop trying to carjack people in the first place would be good too...
Lucky for us, we're not limited to adopting only a single means of solving the problem.
But to put this in its most simple form:
Your way, it's left up to the criminal whether the victim lives or dies since the victim would be legally barred from responding with like force.
My way, the victim has a say in whether he lives or dies because the law gives him a fighting chance.
A dead criminal is much better than a dead victim.
My way is better. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3176
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:10 pm: | |
That about sums it up. ^^ Next.
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on September 30, 2007) |
Tkshreve
Member
Username: Tkshreve
Post Number: 193
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:11 pm: | |
After all. the criminal has not limited his ways in which he deserves to own and possess a car. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:15 pm: | |
TK: Your war metaphors are instructive. If that's how you see society, it seems a small step from there to saying that all's fair. The only victims of that "victory" would be the Magna Carta, the Constitution and the justice system itself.
No doubt to some on this board, that would be a small price to pay for a final VICTORY OVER CRIME. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 136
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:16 pm: | |
"A dead criminal is much better than a dead victim."
So now you all get to decide who dies and who lives based on their actions. Wow, I didn't know we had so many rulers (gods for me) on this site. There's Free Will, but in the end the Criminal never decides who lives and who dies. |
Kathinozarks
Member
Username: Kathinozarks
Post Number: 950
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:30 pm: | |
Better than you deciding, Dr.
"but in the end the Criminal never decides who lives and who dies."
Dr, are you sure that's what you meant to say? |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2265
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:36 pm: | |
^yeah, that's what he meant to say...
it some bullshit about if a criminal murders someone, it's ok because it's God's will, but if a victim kills someone in self defense, then they've done something wrong |
Kathinozarks
Member
Username: Kathinozarks
Post Number: 951
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:39 pm: | |
Detroitrise:
"I don't understand why you people think violence is the only way to solve problem when it's really not.
So now you all get to decide who dies and who lives based on their actions.
If you stopped isolating yourself from others by referring to us as "you people", you might get some better responses to your posts.
I see you standing there pointing your index finger at us and it makes people defensive, imo.
Perhaps you could refer to the other people with opinions as "many others on this thread", or "people", or "others", etc. Just a thought to keep people open to your ideas. |
Cybersanford
Member
Username: Cybersanford
Post Number: 34
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 8:34 am: | |
Kill'em All! |
Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly
Post Number: 42
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 9:57 am: | |
LOL! Its obvious that you have an OPINION, thejesus, and a crystal ball prediction ofr 2008, however you dont have the facts.
I'm sorry, you ignorantly said that the USSC's function is to resolve discrepancies between circuit courts. Please show me where in the constitution that is mentioned? I'll be waiting a VERY long time, because it DOESNT!
As I said, it CAN work in that manner, but doesnt always.
And let me say this again, because obviously you have absolutely no clue at all how law works; when the USSC refuses to hear a case, it in fact affirms its constitutionality by refusing to strike it down. I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding that.
The USSC's function is entirely to be a moderator and interpreter of the constitution, not to be a referee for the circuit courts.
You can thank me anytime you want for educating you in this matter. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3188
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:06 am: | |
The Court grants a petition for certiorari only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include, without limitation:
* to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal constitution
* to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
* to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.
When a conflict of interpretations arises from differing interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this situation a "circuit split". If the Court votes to deny a cert petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert petition is not a judgment on the merits of a case, and the decision of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.
So I guess you are saying this is wrong Detroitsuperfly? Please fix the Wikipedia entry if so. I know it is not infallible, but this text seems to match what I have always read on the matter.
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 01, 2007) |
Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly
Post Number: 43
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:08 am: | |
" I think you know as well as I just how this new Supreme Court will rule on the DC gun ban appeal. "Miller 39" will be forgotten history one year from now, bet on it."
Why would they? The USSC has resisted hearing cases re. encompassing gun cases. They wont even decide whether to hear the case until late this year. But of course, you KNOW they will hear it. LOL! Even very conservative courts have let wide reaching gun bans stand. Oh, unless you want the "conservative" states rights talking point yet again be exposed as BS by eliminating the will of the people for gun bans?
"BTW, Washington DC sure does have a lot of murders for a city without handguns."
I'm not here to dispute whether handguns should or shouldn't be banned. I'm debating whether or not you have a constitutional right to own guns. The USSC says no.
"I'd like to see even ONE piece of hard evidence that allowing citizens to carry guns in any way increases the violent crime rate or the murder rate or the number of shootings What is so fucking bad about CCW laws? Can you give any real reason why you oppose them, based on facts and not fear-mongering emotional rhetoric based on personal biases?"
Now, you are arguing me against a point which I didn't make. Nice job! LOL! |
Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly
Post Number: 44
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:17 am: | |
Perfect gentleman, I know you are incapable of understanding this, but I'll say it anyway (maybe you can get someone to explain it to you); thejesus stated that the USSC's function was to resolve disputes within circuit courts. The constitution says no such thing. It may be one of products of their function, but not their purpose.
Please follow the debate and don't interpret it for your own twisted benefit.
Let me explain this to you. I've done it three times now. When they refuse to hear a case, it stands constitutionally. It affirms its value and stands as law. You people continue to say that gun bans are unconstitutional on their face, despite the USSC not overturning any.
Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?
God I love conservatives! You're so funny! |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3189
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:23 am: | |
quote:Indeed it IS! The USSC states by not hearing it that they see no constitutional problems with the law. You accept the validity of the law by not overturning it. Its EXACTLY the same result had they voted in favor of it.
They are not "accepting" anything, they are making no judgment at all on the merits. They refuse to hear cases all of the time and then later will hear a similar case. You are implying that their denial of cert means they approve of the outcome of the lower court ruling. This is not true. |
Kathinozarks
Member
Username: Kathinozarks
Post Number: 953
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:23 am: | |
I don't belong in this part of the discussion because I don't have any facts about USSC, nor do I know what it is. I just want to say:
"you people", "you people", "you people", "you people".
Jeez, this "you people" thing bugs me! |
Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly
Post Number: 47
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:27 am: | |
By not hearing the case, it stands constitutionally.
Despite if they argue the merits or not.
Does the ban still stand or does it not?
[/story] |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2266
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:28 am: | |
"thejesus stated that the USSC's function was to resolve disputes within circuit courts."
No, what I said was when they agree to hear a case, it's usually to resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeals.
You are correct that when they refuse to hear a case, the ruling of THAT CASE stands...
However, you are incorrect in suggesting that the ruling of that that case applies to the whole country. It does not. It ONLY APPLIES TO THE STATES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT CIRCUIT...
And that's the difference between an affirmation and a denial of certiorari. A denial merely affirms the rule for THAT CIRCUIT, whereas an affirmation or reversal creates a rule that applies to EVERY FEDERAL CIRCUIT.
This is why the rule in the 7th circuit is different that D.C. Circuit...handgun bans are unconstitutional in some circuits and constitutional in others...
And because there is now a split on the issue among the circuit courts, the Supreme Court will NOW likely hear the issue and formulate an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that applies to ALL circuits...
There's not debate here. I'm not stating an opinion. You are simply dead wrong on this.
And I don't hold it against you because most laypeople don't understand how the federal court system works. But you should at least acknowledge the possibility that you're limited knowledge on the subject could be incorrect.
(Message edited by thejesus on October 01, 2007) |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3190
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:31 am: | |
By not hearing the case, it stands constitutionally. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2268
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:34 am: | |
PG:
I give up with this guy. I don't know whether he's incapable of understanding what we're telling him, or whether he's just too closed-minded to accept the fact that he's wrong about something...
Either way, it looks like that he's going to go through the rest of his life being wrong about this and there's nothing anyone can do about it... |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3191
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
Agreed ^^ |
Beatsworking
Member
Username: Beatsworking
Post Number: 94
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:01 am: | |
Sorry to rehatch such a fun, positive thread... But... has anyone heard any other news about this. I heard that the Troy guy is the owner of Target Sports gun range on Woodward in Bham. From what I hear, this is not the first time this guy has shot somebody dead for pulling a gun on him. He certainly has the right to defend himself, but people who know him say he's definitely trigger happy. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:07 am: | |
quote:but people who know him say he's definitely trigger happy.
Source? |
Gianni
Member
Username: Gianni
Post Number: 307
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:27 am: | |
Maybe this has already been said here and if so sorry, but I don't have time right now to read all the hundreds of posts.
My first reaction to this was "good" now maybe potential carjackers will think twice before pulling a gun. In other words hopefully carjacking will decrease if the bad guys are afraid that the good guys are armed.
Then I read about the off duty cop in Oak Park who also shot an attempted carjacker. Then I remembered about the woman in Hamtramck a couple of weeks ago who was shot and killed in a carjacking.
What I worry about is this: now that carjackers are afraid the victim will shoot back, they will no longer just threaten to shoot, they will shoot and shoot first before the victim has time to do anything.
Carjacking is a horrible, heinous crime, but until recently it seems that actual shootings as opposed to threats were quite rare. So now that we've upped the ante, I'm afraid the violence may just get worse, not better. |
Beatsworking
Member
Username: Beatsworking
Post Number: 95
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:30 am: | |
My source is someone very close to me who has business relationships with guy. My source did not describe him as trigger happy, but his business partners did. That's all I can say about that.
Apparently the guy shot the jacker 10 times and then took a cell phone pic of the guy lying there dead with the gun in his hand as evidence he was being jacked. A plain clothes officer ran up with gun drawn, and the guy turned his gun on the cop until a badge was produced. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2277
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:41 am: | |
^wow...that all sounds pretty far-fetched if you ask me...
I used to use the gun range at Target Sports every week when I live in RO...the guys there were all very knowledgeable about firearms and very serious about self-defense and gun safety, but I wouldn't describe any of them as "trigger happy" |
Rjk
Member
Username: Rjk
Post Number: 889
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:52 am: | |
BW, if that's true we'll hear about it through the media. Someone escaping a carjacking and having to kill someone on two different occasions is a story in itself. A news reporter would love to dig into this guys background, especially if he's described as trigger happy. |
Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard
Post Number: 142
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 2:28 pm: | |
Trigger-happy or not, he's still a hero for cleaning at least a small fraction of the scum off the streets.
No sympathy here for gun-toting shitbag carjackers, ever. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.