Liberals judges write new law - You can't have a gun if your WIFE has a felony conviction

[M14 Shooter]

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

The NJ law allows for arbitrary denial, which is what happened here.

 

[paddymurphy]

This is the law: "An individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms, U.S. Const. amend. II, is "subject to reasonable limitations." Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207, 209-10 (2010). .

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

It is not a law, it is the law. A court decision is binding law.

 

[paddymurphy]

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

The NJ law allows for arbitrary denial, which is what happened here.

Still struggling with that word, arbitrary?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

The NRA agrees with you. Kinda makes me wonder where else you might agree.

 

[paddymurphy]

No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.

Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals

His rights are not unlimited. They are limited where his exercise would endanger public safety.

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.

By your sheep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

No, you dumb ****, you don't. You have to prove that allowing him to have a gun in that home would pose a danger to the public. The law allows the denial of a gun to a person never convicted of a crime if there is a patter of violent, yet uncharged, conduct.

One can have a gun in the home and not be a danger to the public. And who has to commit the patter of violent uncharged conduct?

Someone other that the person getting his rights violated?

HE is not a danger to the public so HE should be able to keep his firearms.

All that need be done is he keep them away from the wife.

IT AIN"T ******* ROCKET SCIENCE

No, it is not rocket science. But it does require the ability to read and understand what you read and those seem beyond your ability.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This is the law: "An individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms, U.S. Const. amend. II, is "subject to reasonable limitations." Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207, 209-10 (2010). .

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

It is not a law, it is the law. A court decision is binding law.

Wrong. Even courts are subject to the law.

 

[paddymurphy]

This is the law: "An individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms, U.S. Const. amend. II, is "subject to reasonable limitations." Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207, 209-10 (2010). .

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

It is not a law, it is the law. A court decision is binding law.

Wrong. Even courts are subject to the law.

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This is the law: "An individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms, U.S. Const. amend. II, is "subject to reasonable limitations." Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207, 209-10 (2010). .

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

It is not a law, it is the law. A court decision is binding law.

Wrong. Even courts are subject to the law.

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

 

[paddymurphy]

This is the law: "An individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms, U.S. Const. amend. II, is "subject to reasonable limitations." Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207, 209-10 (2010). .

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

It is not a law, it is the law. A court decision is binding law.

Wrong. Even courts are subject to the law.

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's not a law, you moron. That's a federal court ruling. The constitution says only congress can write laws. Show us a law written by the NJ legislature that says you can't have a gun if anyone in your home has a felony conviction.

It is not a law, it is the law. A court decision is binding law.

Wrong. Even courts are subject to the law.

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is not a law, it is the law. A court decision is binding law.

Wrong. Even courts are subject to the law.

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Wrong. Even courts are subject to the law.

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

 

[paddymurphy]

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

 

[paddymurphy]

Your comment means nothing. The courts apply the law in written decisions, as this court did here. What they decide is binding law on other courts.

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

"One foundation block of our judicial system is the principle of stare decisis which demands adherence to precedents. Decisions are made in accord with previous authoritative decisions in similar cases emanating from one's own circuit and from the Supreme Court. A lower court owes deference to those above it; ordinarily it has no authority to reject a doctrine developed by a higher court. See, e.g., Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535, 103 S.Ct. 1343, 1344, 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983) (per curiam); Perri v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 817 F.2d 448, 451 n.4 (7th Cir. 1987)."

Now, find a Supreme Court case that supports your view.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals

His rights are not unlimited. They are limited where his exercise would endanger public safety.

Then you have to prove that he and he alone is a danger if he is allowed to own guns not that someone else is.

By your sheep logic I could revoke your drivers license because your husband killed someone while driving drunk

No, you dumb ****, you don't. You have to prove that allowing him to have a gun in that home would pose a danger to the public. The law allows the denial of a gun to a person never convicted of a crime if there is a patter of violent, yet uncharged, conduct.

One can have a gun in the home and not be a danger to the public. And who has to commit the patter of violent uncharged conduct?

Someone other that the person getting his rights violated?

HE is not a danger to the public so HE should be able to keep his firearms.

All that need be done is he keep them away from the wife.

IT AIN"T ******* ROCKET SCIENCE

No, it is not rocket science. But it does require the ability to read and understand what you read and those seem beyond your ability.

No it's just that a follow the flock sheep like yourself can't understand individual rights.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't

Really? So once one court decides then it decides for all other courts? One wonders how a conflict of decisions has brought Obamacare and *** marriage before the Supreme Court to be decided next week.

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule on gay butt sex marriage, skid mark. And my comments had nothing to do with higher courts whose rulings are not binding outside of their district. If it was, then a ruling by the 9th district court of appeals would have settled the issue of butt sex nuptials for all, but lower courts in other districts gave dissenting rulings, which blows a big hole in your argument and inserts a big penis, no lubricant required.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't

Yes. It is called precedent. A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot.

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule on gay butt sex marriage, skid mark. And my comments had nothing to do with higher courts whose rulings are not binding outside of their district. If it was, then a ruling by the 9th district court of appeals would have settled the issue of butt sex nuptials for all, but lower courts in other districts gave dissenting rulings, which blows a big hole in your argument and inserts a big penis, no lubricant required.

Not sure why you want to interject your obsession with getting fucked in the ass to this discussion. Go back to the gay porn sites you frequent and maybe someone there will titillate you. My argument, dipshit, was simply that when the higher court rules on an issue is it binding law on the lower courts in that jurisdiction. You have apparently educated yourself to the point where you know I am right so you pretend I said something different.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't

And yet it doesn't, hence the dissenting rulings that thrust these issues before the Supreme Court. Legal precedent is a guide to future courts, not a diktat, skid mark.

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule on gay butt sex marriage, skid mark. And my comments had nothing to do with higher courts whose rulings are not binding outside of their district. If it was, then a ruling by the 9th district court of appeals would have settled the issue of butt sex nuptials for all, but lower courts in other districts gave dissenting rulings, which blows a big hole in your argument and inserts a big penis, no lubricant required.

Not sure why you want to interject your obsession with getting fucked in the ass to this discussion. Go back to the gay porn sites you frequent and maybe someone there will titillate you. My argument, dipshit, was simply that when the higher court rules on an issue is it binding law on the lower courts in that jurisdiction. You have apparently educated yourself to the point where you know I am right so you pretend I said something different.

"In that jurisdiction". It seems you keep having to correct yourself, skid mark. You should get your story correct the first time so as to avoid the appearance of glaring stupidity.

 

[paddymurphy]

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't

Go find a topic you have a clue about.

Sounds like you lost the argument, skid mark. Better luck next time.

Sounds like you like to claim victory whatever happens. A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts. That is a basic legal principle that you are not capable of understanding. When the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, that decision binds every lower court, even the headed by the piece of shit Roy Moore in Alabama.

We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule on gay butt sex marriage, skid mark. And my comments had nothing to do with higher courts whose rulings are not binding outside of their district. If it was, then a ruling by the 9th district court of appeals would have settled the issue of butt sex nuptials for all, but lower courts in other districts gave dissenting rulings, which blows a big hole in your argument and inserts a big penis, no lubricant required.

Not sure why you want to interject your obsession with getting fucked in the ass to this discussion. Go back to the gay porn sites you frequent and maybe someone there will titillate you. My argument, dipshit, was simply that when the higher court rules on an issue is it binding law on the lower courts in that jurisdiction. You have apparently educated yourself to the point where you know I am right so you pretend I said something different.

"In that jurisdiction". It seems you keep having to correct yourself, skid mark. You should get your story correct the first time so as to avoid the appearance of glaring stupidity.

This is what I posted that you disagreed with: "A decision by the highest court binds the lower courts. Stop being a ******* idiot." And this: "A decision by a higher court is binding on lower courts." Now, go **** yourself.

 

[Moonglow]

No. If someone is convicted of a felony, and cannot get their rights restored thru the courts, they do not ever need to be able to own a gun.

They have already shown their disdain for the law. They have already broken a serious law. And the courts obviously think they are a danger if armed.

Too bad, I have them anywhey...