Ohio's DeWine does not crumble before the anti-gun loons

Discussion in 'Politics' started by M14 Shooter, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,306
    Thanks Received:
    2,254
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,140
    Ohio will not see red flag laws, universal background checks or a ban on assault weapons.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,118
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    First off, my figure was WAAAYY off. It is actually 73.5 MILLION people that have a criminal record according to the FBI.

    How many U.S. adults have a criminal record?.

    Your response is very short sighted. For example, in 1985 how many guys would have gotten in a fight with their brother over Susie Rottencrotch, only to pay a $50 fine to the Justice of the Peace and then have their Rights taken away years later due to the Lautenberg Amendment? I'd bet dollars against doughnuts you never wrote your congresscritters about that unconstitutional law and its ex post facto applications.

    When you lock 73.5 MILLION people out of the decision making process and make them second class citizens, most of them are going to become Democrats if they vote. A lot of people get tagged as "criminals" when they never actually broke a law. Innocent people get convicted every single day. Unconstitutional laws are upheld. The system no longer requires that we show mens rea (that the accused intended to commit a crime); only that a statute was violated. You've probably been lucky during your lifetime. If fate should catch you and you get wrongly accused, I hope you reflect back on this conversation.

    To hold convictions over peoples heads does nothing to further our culture. It locks Americans out of jobs, destroys families and gives a pretext to make a million people a year citizens - most of which end up being liberals. For you to think that teens think that every youthful indiscretion might destroy their lives is very naive. I wonder how many laws YOU actually broke yourself growing up - whether intentional or not. Many times people do things they believe to be legal and just, only to be convicted of a crime. You apparently think this is the way we should run the country.

    "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it. . . There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." — Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged 1957
     
  3. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,118
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Your article states DeWine wants to "improve existing systems" and the existing systems are restrictive.
     
  4. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,118
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    As I pointed out earlier, the income tax was voluntary too when it started. Now everyone is convinced it's mandatory to get an SSN and be forced to forfeit part of your earnings.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,118
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    If you put laws into place that help to "improve existing systems" you might.

    Look, I know it's fashionable to say we want existing laws enforced and and we'll improve existing systems. Quite frankly, I hope that don't happen in Georgia as long as I'm alive. Here is the deal here:

    EVERYBODY in Georgia who wants a divorce must submit a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER with their divorce petition OR the policy is your divorce petition will be rejected as a matter of policy. Read this paragraph again.

    There is no statute requiring a Mutual Restraining Order, but without one, the government does not accept your petition for divorce. It's policy. Here are the consequences:

    The Lautenberg Amendment states that if you are under a domestic restraining order, you cannot own a firearm. Now, the judges don't want to see a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; they want you to submit a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER. In plain English, if you've EVER been divorced in Georgia, you can NEVER own a firearm. Imagine what would happen if they really DID enforce existing laws! The government does not enforce some laws for an obvious reason, but one day something will happen and you will accept it. With the income tax, it took two and half decades and a man named Al Capone to make the IRS look like the good guys.

    Even YOU might be a "criminal" and not know it.
     
  6. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,306
    Thanks Received:
    2,254
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,140
    Looking at this more closely:

    The Lautenburg Amendment defines 'domestic violence' as a crime between intimate partners, under which siblings do not fall:
    18U.S.C.§921(a)(33)(A)(ii):
    ....committed by a current or former spouse,parent,or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent,or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

    If you have a child with your sister, this may apply, else it does not.
    For a restring order to DQ someone under the Lautenberg Amendment it must meet the following conditions:

    - It was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
    - It restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
    - It includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child;
    - It explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;


    See bold. I suspect a mutual restraining order - which under what I found in GA law, is not a VPO - submitted by the parties to a divorce, includes any such finding.
     
  7. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,118
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Well well, who do we have here? Perry Mason? Perhaps Denny Crane?

    The accused can appear all they want, but the Order is issued... that is the bottom line. Insofar as interpretation, NOBODY ever challenges them; they just sign the divorce papers and move on. IF there is no credible threat, the defendant would demand a hearing... or so the legal system presumes. They don't. Defendants sign the paperwork and move on. Then the courts apply the law any way they see fit. And you ain't no judge. There is NO CREDIBLE REASON to require the Mutual Restraining Order in the first place; however once issued, it is what it is.

    It's just like people used to think you had to pay income tax. Tax protesters would show you the law and I even participated on a team that won in the United States Supreme Court wherein the accused was found not guilty because the state failed to prove he did not intend to willfully break the law. But you and I both know, prior to the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, virtually nobody ever challenged the fact that having an SSN was clearly voluntary.

    People have Rights, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. You have an opportunity to challenge any legal document you receive; failure to request a hearing or other legal remedy is an admission to accept whatever the court alleges or demands. It's like this: If I sue you and you do not respond in a timely manner (30 days from date of service), you lose by default.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  8. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,306
    Thanks Received:
    2,254
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,140
    I took the time to look at the actual law.
    Given your erroneous interpretations thereof, maybe you should try it a little more often.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  9. miketx
    Offline

    miketx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    67,982
    Thanks Received:
    7,727
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    near Throckmorton TX
    Ratings:
    +77,483
    You goons sure help the crime culture every time you get some bogus gun law passed, don't you?
     
  10. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,118
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.

    Statutes can seem to be crystal clear to the average person, but judges, not political hacks on a discussion board ultimately interpret the laws. Your interpretation is a private interpretation not backed by any case law citations.

    I realize that you do not understand the Constitution nor the meaning of unalienable Rights. It really has to hurt when someone points out your errors and drives you to want to double down and be right. The problem is you are wrong. And, in giving the government more and more power, you negate your own arguments to keep and bear Arms.

    Unalienable Rights are given by a god - government OR they are bestowed upon you by a Creator. I have to post this from time to time, so let me show you what legal citations look like and what the law actually IS with respect to the Right to keep and bear Arms:

    By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


    The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

    Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

    BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



    According to Wikipedia:

    "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


    Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

    In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

    The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

    In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

    "The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

    -Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

    Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

    The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

    ..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

    Those are the FIRST court decisions all the way up to and including the United States Supreme Court. Our forefathers created three branches of government. The United States Supreme Court gets to interpret the law. There is no provision for them to get to come back and reinterpret the law. That is called legislating from the bench. It was something the forefathers warned against. So, while the system may have the POWER to declare this or that about the Second Amendment, they certainly lack the AUTHORITY.

    Sooo... what I do is look at the ORIGINAL rulings. If a later court contradicts the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling, I ignore it. If, OTOH, a ruling expands on a previous ruling that enhances it or makes it a bit more plain, I will use it. I lobby every gun owner to do the same. Otherwise, the law is not worth the paper it's written on. DeWine wants to "improve existing systems" and the existing systems contradict the Constitution as originally written and intended.

    As for the Lautenberg Amendment, I have actually litigated it in court. Have you?


     

Share This Page