Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gun control

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 15>
Author
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 10:37am
Very true.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 10:33am

I would suggest that technically Dibi is correct, but most of us still colloquially refer to judges as "enforcing" the law...

Mostly semantics...

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 10:31am
Yes technicaly true, they decide sentencing, but this isnt enforcement, it is judgement. Both are judgment, a quote i like is "The judicial branch has neither the power of the sword(enforcement) nor the power of the purse(ability to levy taxes) Their position is merely judgment."
Back to Top
Bugg View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
One screw up and all screen names go

Joined: 16 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bugg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 10:03am
Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

Originally posted by Bugg Bugg wrote:

True be that, couse only the Leglislative branch can make laws, only the excutative law can veto them and only the judicial branch can enforce them

checks and balances, gotta love 'em


The judicial branch can inforce nothing.
Why do you think we have prisons? Because judges make rulings for punishment.. hence enforce unless your saying "Cops enforce, judges decide"
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 10:02am
Not technically true. The judicial branch carries out sentencing and reverses decisions; therefore, on a technical standard can be seen as enforcers (or lackthereof) of laws. If the judicial branch sees a law as unconstitutional it can enforce the reversal of it by not sentencing those charged with the law/crime.
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 10:02am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

Your quite wrong on these points. The NRA actually advocates a centralized nation database for background checks. Congress dismissed it as being to expensive to implement.


I stand corrected. The NRA opposed the Brady Bill primarily (I understand) due to the waiting period, not due to the background check.

Quote The NRA also advocates firearms safety training for everyone.


The NRA, I believe, advocates VOLUNTARY safety training, not mandatory training.



Well, they support mandatory safety training too. At the NRA building in Annondale VA. There is a shooting range, i like it a lot, i go about once a week. You must pass a safety test to go on the range weather you will be shooting or not.
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 10:01am
Originally posted by Bugg Bugg wrote:

True be that, couse only the Leglislative branch can make laws, only the excutative law can veto them and only the judicial branch can enforce them

checks and balances, gotta love 'em


The judicial branch can inforce nothing.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 8:27am

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

And that's interpratation of existing law not creating law whole cloth. My point is that no court is empowered to create new law. Yes, Miranda is interpretation, Roe v Wade is interpretation, etc, etc etc. Including the tort citing you made. Without an appeal requiring interpretation there would be no president for the later cases in lower courts to cite. But it's still not new law, it interpretation of how existing law should be enforced and/or excercised.

I am sure our technical discussion of the fundamentals of the British commonlaw legal system is fascinating our readers...  :)

But you are incorrect.  Judges can and do create laws whole cloth.  Yes, only in the context of an actual case, but whole cloth nevertheless.  Negligence law was not originally based on ANY statute.  It was entirely judge-made, from scratch (recently various jurisdictions have enacted legislation to tweak these rules, but the origins are clearly judge made).

Court, both of law and of equity, have broad powers to create law.  They have to follow statute (unless unconstitutional), but in the absence of statute they can - and do - make up their own laws.

Back to Top
whoknowswho View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 September 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote whoknowswho Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 8:27am

What about the new "sniper rifle" ban that anti-gun lobbyists are trying to get through? It bans "heavy and medium" "sniper" rifles on the basis that they could be used by terrorists. Let me see, what could that include? Obviously, the .50 BMG is a target, but what about that .30-06 in your closet? It has a scope, and is not a .22, so it is a medium sniper rifle. Hurry, take it away!! If you put a scope on your lever action .30-30, guess what? .25-06 varmit rifle? Definately a terrorist weapon. Better take that .222 target rifle away too. Even if they ban .50 guns, that would include blackpowder rifles and several specialty cartridges. They could even stretch that to shotguns if they wanted to. While the NRA may have its faults, I think that it is a much needed organization. Without them, there is no telling what kind of laws would have been passed at the insistence of gun grabbers without our knowledge. They do advocate firearms safety, and that is one of their main points for new members. If you join the NRA, one of the first things they send you is info on training in your area if you want it. Finally, I am not against gun control, but I think what we have in the books now is good and should be enforced much better.

Back to Top
Bugg View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
One screw up and all screen names go

Joined: 16 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bugg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 8:14am
Like I said, I hate how liberals (and some conservatives) are complaining that Bush didn't reinstate the assault weapons ban

Well

1) He has no control over it, only congress

and

2) If people wanted the weaponsto cause harm to another person during the ban, thye could have still gotten the gun, no stopping them

Back to Top
Zesty View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out

Joined: 05 October 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6050
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zesty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 8:07am
I think AdmiralSenn mkaes a good point....as a pro-gun person, you are kinda forced to be "whole-hearted" about it.

Once you ban one type of rifle, then it's another...next thing you know you have to give up any gun that can penetrate a bullet-proof vest! Don't laugh, they've already tried!

The AWB just shows that these law-makers have no clue what they're talking about! As long as it looks scary, it's illegal. Who cares about functionality!

Anyone familiar with Diane Feinstein? She's some old political hag from Califonia. She is one of the most outspoken people against assault weapons and guns in general, yet she has a concealed carry permit and armed bodyguards!

I guess so long as you're rich, you're life is worth protecting with a firearm. I guess even anti-gun politicians aren't so against guns as to pack one themselves.....**edited**ing hypocrits!
Back to Top
Bugg View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
One screw up and all screen names go

Joined: 16 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bugg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 7:35am
True be that, couse only the Leglislative branch can make laws, only the excutative law can veto them and only the judicial branch can enforce them

checks and balances, gotta love 'em
Back to Top
SR_Crewchief View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2663
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SR_Crewchief Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 April 2005 at 5:59am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

Sorry, the Court never MAKES the law. It either uphold it or declares it un-Constitutional, where the decision before the Court is the constitutionality of a law. The MAKING of law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.


Well, yes and no.


The Judicial Branch has more power than to simply declare laws unconstitutional.  The Judicial Branch can also interpret laws (including the Consitution).  And since these interpretations are legally binding on lower courts, the result is judge-made law.


There are many areas of law where there is very little legislation, and mostly judge-made law.  Torts, for instance.  You will have to look hard to find in a statute book the law that you are liable for your own negligence.  That is judge-made law.  Almost all civil tort suits in this country are founded entirely in judge-made law.  Slip and fall?  Judge made.  Car accidents?  Judge made.


Then there are the interpretations.  Miranda warnings?  Judge-made by interpretation of the Fifth Amendment.


We have a common law system.  We have lots of judge-made law.



And that's interpratation of existing law not creating law whole cloth. My point is that no court is empowered to create new law. Yes, Miranda is interpretation, Roe v Wade is interpretation, etc, etc etc. Including the tort citing you made. Without an appeal requiring interpretation there would be no president for the later cases in lower courts to cite. But it's still not new law, it interpretation of how existing law should be enforced and/or excercised.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:54pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

We also have lots of regulatory committees creating laws like the FDA, FCC, and so on.

The executive branch does create quasi-law in this manner, but if we are going to be picky these are regulations, not laws.  They are just as binding on citizens as laws, though.

The executive branch also has the power of the executive order, which theoretically is not law, but certainly carries the force of law.

Very true. Good point.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:39pm

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

We also have lots of regulatory committees creating laws like the FDA, FCC, and so on.

The executive branch does create quasi-law in this manner, but if we are going to be picky these are regulations, not laws.  They are just as binding on citizens as laws, though.

The executive branch also has the power of the executive order, which theoretically is not law, but certainly carries the force of law.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:36pm

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

Your quite wrong on these points.

The NRA actually advocates a centralized nation database for background checks. Congress dismissed it as being to expensive to implement.

I stand corrected.  The NRA opposed the Brady Bill primarily (I understand) due to the waiting period, not due to the background check.

Quote The NRA also advocates firearms safety training for everyone.

The NRA, I believe, advocates VOLUNTARY safety training, not mandatory training.

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:31pm
We also have lots of regulatory committees creating laws like the FDA, FCC, and so on.
Back to Top
SR_Crewchief View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2663
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SR_Crewchief Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

<snip>

They were against background checks.  They were against waiting periods.  They were against training requirements.  Against, against, against.


<snip>


Your quite wrong on these points.

The NRA actually advocates a centralized nation database for background checks. Congress dismissed it as being to expensive to implement.

The NRA also advocates firearms safety training for everyone.

Yes they actively lobby against "Gun Control" measures that are nothing more than thinly vailed attempts to disarm law abiding citizians.

And for the record I am not nor have I ever been a member of the NRA.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:29pm

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:


Sorry, the Court never MAKES the law. It either uphold it or declares it un-Constitutional, where the decision before the Court is the constitutionality of a law.

The MAKING of law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

Well, yes and no.

The Judicial Branch has more power than to simply declare laws unconstitutional.  The Judicial Branch can also interpret laws (including the Consitution).  And since these interpretations are legally binding on lower courts, the result is judge-made law.

There are many areas of law where there is very little legislation, and mostly judge-made law.  Torts, for instance.  You will have to look hard to find in a statute book the law that you are liable for your own negligence.  That is judge-made law.  Almost all civil tort suits in this country are founded entirely in judge-made law.  Slip and fall?  Judge made.  Car accidents?  Judge made.

Then there are the interpretations.  Miranda warnings?  Judge-made by interpretation of the Fifth Amendment.

We have a common law system.  We have lots of judge-made law.

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:29pm
Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

[QUOTE=Clark Kent]

But we DO know who is right:  The US Supreme Court.  That's how the system works.  The rest of us just have opinions - the Court makes the law.


<snip>

Sorry, the Court never MAKES the law. It either uphold it or declares it un-Constitutional, where the decision before the Court is the constitutionality of a law.

The MAKING of law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

Even though they may not directly create law, they have been the deciding factor is most of the important law issues of the 20th century. They do make or break the law. Technically, they do create new laws or stipulations for laws.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.