User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:28:16 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't have enough emanations from your penumbra to understand, bro. Oh, I understand it just fine. The homo's set out to get some rights invented, and thanks to the legal gymnastics and endless rationalizations of SCOTUS, they got their wish. It's cool though. People will start to wake up when there are more Kim Davis types getting jailed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:29:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. We have a winner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:29:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Passing a law creating an 'infringement' of a Constitutionally guaranteed right should be the jailable offense.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:30:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a winner. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. We have a winner. This does make some sense |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:30:43 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. If there are going to be licensing laws in place then it should be jail worthy offence, but you are absolutely correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:31:50 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then everything can be argued to be a right. Ridiculous. That's a bullshit interpretation that creates yet another catch all for the federal government to constantly expand its power. If the federal government declares something a right, they then use incorporation to impose their will upon the states. This lys completely in the face of our constitutional foundation which called for a federal government with limited powers, strong protections for the states, and a very limited judiciary that has increased it's power through fiat. The powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. If marriage is a right, it's one that is regulated by the states, NOT the federal government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's count the hypocrites. I think the better question is why do we need a permit to exercise an explicitly stated constitutional right? I see no right to "marriage" in the constitution, and I see an amendment that says rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. You fail at trolling. You fail at what RIGHT means. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. That IS in the Constitution. Then everything can be argued to be a right. Ridiculous. That's a bullshit interpretation that creates yet another catch all for the federal government to constantly expand its power. If the federal government declares something a right, they then use incorporation to impose their will upon the states. This lys completely in the face of our constitutional foundation which called for a federal government with limited powers, strong protections for the states, and a very limited judiciary that has increased it's power through fiat. The powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. If marriage is a right, it's one that is regulated by the states, NOT the federal government. If it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg it should be a right. Doesn't matter what it is or how you feel about it. As to the states regulating it...the same goes. Their interest ends when it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg, no matter how much you don't want someone to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:32:50 AM EDT
[#7]
The gay mafia gets win after win and they still are not happy. Bunch limp-wristed cry babies.
Here is some cheese for your whine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:34:06 AM EDT
[#8]
The one thing I can't figure out is, why not just go to the next county?
They put their wieners where poop comes out......... but they want to make sure this whole thing is done "properly"? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:34:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This does make some sense Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. We have a winner. This does make some sense Nevertheless, since when in the current federal administration aren't there many standards and many "equals", and the rule of law became a mockery activism? If this country continues like this it will end up not better than some African little dictatorship... of wait, we have an African in the White House, maybe that's what the folks who elected it wanted after all. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:35:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The gay mafia gets win after win and they still are not happy. Bunch limp-wristed cry babies. Here is some cheese for your whine. https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.HqlZ1K%2bVuZ5ZomwhOK60vg&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0 Quick! That Tortoise is stealing the cheese! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:35:19 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:46:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Requiring the damn things should carry a life sentence without parole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:49:48 AM EDT
[#13]
only in a Shall Issue jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:49:48 AM EDT
[#14]
double tap...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:50:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:55:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. Yup. Though for the purposes of this discussion, that is, the real world, where CC permits and marriage licenses are in fact required officially, then my answer is, of course not. However, the person so refusing should be terminated immediately, or should resign. If the person remains in their job/office, where a requirement to issue said licenses/permits exists, and refuses to resign and is not fired, but refuses a court order to comply with the law, then that person should of course be jailed for contempt of court. The clerk in KY was not jailed for failure to issue a marriage license, she was jailed for refusing to comply with the lawful order of a competent court. To state that she was jailed for not issuing the license is like saying Michael Brown was shot for walking in the road. Yes, the outcomes flowed from the initial act, but Brown could have hit the sidewalk, and the clerk in KY could have simply said that issuing such a license would betray her conscience, and resigned her position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:04:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes I agree. Now how do we leverage this ruling to apply to sheriffs in may issue states that NEVER issue? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. Second post nails it. Yes I agree. Now how do we leverage this ruling to apply to sheriffs in may issue states that NEVER issue? We use their exact same arguments using the 14th amendment. I don't agree with the decision, but we might as well use their own arguments against them. There are a lot of articles on this subject: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355349-did-the-gay-marriage-ruling-just-legalize-concealed-carry-nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:05:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, and troll thread is troll. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. This, and troll thread is troll. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:08:41 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure where you are trying to lead this one... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Refusing to do your job should be a grounds for re-assignment or termination. "Just Following Orders." Not sure where you are trying to lead this one... looks like he is headed to the logical conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:48:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Passing a law creating an 'infringement' of a Constitutionally guaranteed right should be the jailable offense. CCW laws are infringements as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:55:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Refusing to do your job should be a grounds for re-assignment or termination. Except for elected officials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:57:29 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because like Marriage Licenses, they shouldn't exist. Pretty solid response. I'll go with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:10:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We use their exact same arguments using the 14th amendment. I don't agree with the decision, but we might as well use their own arguments against them. There are a lot of articles on this subject: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355349-did-the-gay-marriage-ruling-just-legalize-concealed-carry-nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in/ Here's a man that knows how to play the game.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:12:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I understand it just fine. The homo's set out to get some rights invented, and thanks to the legal gymnastics and endless rationalizations of SCOTUS, they got their wish. It's cool though. People will start to wake up when there are more Kim Davis types getting jailed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You don't have enough emanations from your penumbra to understand, bro. Oh, I understand it just fine. The homo's set out to get some rights invented, and thanks to the legal gymnastics and endless rationalizations of SCOTUS, they got their wish. It's cool though. People will start to wake up when there are more Kim Davis types getting jailed. The emanations from the penumbra started WAY before the gay stuff. The entire concept of "substantive due process" is nonsense. But there it is... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:14:34 PM EDT
[#25]
No.........just fire them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:15:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.................... The emanations from the penumbra started WAY before the gay stuff. The entire concept of "substantive due process" is nonsense. But there it is... Ya' think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:16:49 PM EDT
[#27]
No....a fucking permit or license isn't FUCKING NEEDED.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:24:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No.........just fire them. You can't just "fire" elected officials. That's the whole issue here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:32:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't just "fire" elected officials. That's the whole issue here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No.........just fire them. You can't just "fire" elected officials. That's the whole issue here. The legislature can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:44:48 PM EDT
[#30]
The reason the clerk was "jailed" for failing issuing marriage licenses, a Federal Judge ordered her to do so related to "Civil Rights" violation. It is contempt of court related to a Federal court order.
So... it is apples and oranges under Federal law. It would be great if we could get a Federal Judge to issue a court order to have CCW licenses issued... but it is different than "Civil Rights" violations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 1:16:17 PM EDT
[#31]
I'd keep it more simple.
You refuse to do your job, we refuse to pay you AND block access to any accrued retirement funds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:25:07 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a man that knows how to play the game. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We use their exact same arguments using the 14th amendment. I don't agree with the decision, but we might as well use their own arguments against them. There are a lot of articles on this subject: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355349-did-the-gay-marriage-ruling-just-legalize-concealed-carry-nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in/ Here's a man that knows how to play the game. Even when it's rigged and highly stacked against what is not in the agenda, even if illegal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:25:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Hey, another troll thread by steve.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 5:27:03 PM EDT
[#34]
They shouldn't exist at all, but I would say no it should carry the death penalty not jail time. Same for any other violation of rights like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 5:30:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Does the law state they SHALL be issued, or MAY be issued?
This is important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 6:05:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the law state they SHALL be issued, or MAY be issued? This is important. Yup. 'Shall' means it's mandatory, 'may' means it's optional. If someone is refusing to issue CCW permits in a shall issue state, they should face prosecution or dismissal, as that is defined as a responsibility of theirs. In a may-issue state, it's done at their discretion, and I don't think you can prosecute someone for ignoring an optional task. I find 'may issue' to be a violation of the 2nd, but then I'm not SCOTUS, so my opinion means nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:02:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey, another troll thread by steve. Hey, and yet here you are again. Do you even legitimate question, bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:11:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They shouldn't exist, but since they do, refusal to issue should be a jailable offense. Much like the current marriage license shenanigans in KY Im going here. Since we do have to deal with the current regulations, dragging your feet or denying without justifiable reasons should land your ass in the clink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:29:37 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg it should be a right. Doesn't matter what it is or how you feel about it. As to the states regulating it...the same goes. Their interest ends when it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg, no matter how much you don't want someone to do it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's count the hypocrites. I think the better question is why do we need a permit to exercise an explicitly stated constitutional right? I see no right to "marriage" in the constitution, and I see an amendment that says rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. You fail at trolling. You fail at what RIGHT means. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. That IS in the Constitution. Then everything can be argued to be a right. Ridiculous. That's a bullshit interpretation that creates yet another catch all for the federal government to constantly expand its power. If the federal government declares something a right, they then use incorporation to impose their will upon the states. This lys completely in the face of our constitutional foundation which called for a federal government with limited powers, strong protections for the states, and a very limited judiciary that has increased it's power through fiat. The powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. If marriage is a right, it's one that is regulated by the states, NOT the federal government. If it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg it should be a right. Doesn't matter what it is or how you feel about it. As to the states regulating it...the same goes. Their interest ends when it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg, no matter how much you don't want someone to do it. That's an interesting standard... Can you direct me to where that is found in the Constitution? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
