Jump to content

Weapons Seizure & Forfeiture pursuant to domestic violence accusation...

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

[

In the 1930s, a law requiring the compulsory forced sterilization of the mentally ill was held to be a reasonable restriction on their right to bear children, with the Justice writing for the majority ending his opinion with the memorable line of, "three generations of idiots are enough".

About 10 years later, the same Supreme Court said that it was perfectly fine for FDRs War Department to round up and detain American citizens of Japanese ancestry, and confiscate and sell their property. Somewhere in my constitution is says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law". They weren't afforded any opportunity to challenge their loss of liberty. Or property.

As late as the end of the 1960s, many states denied married couples access to artificial birth control, and denied the right of any non-white to marry a white.

It's fundamental constitutional law--at least since the turn of the 19th century---that individual rights can be subordinated to a "compelling state interest". Every lawyer learns this in first year Con Law.

 

 

Let's be honest, though. You push any of those decisions a little bit further, and that's what revolutions are made from......

 

"Constitutional" or not..... Especially since a "compelling state interest" is in the eye of the beholder. Least under any attempt to define that I have ever seen.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[
In the 1930s, a law requiring the compulsory forced sterilization of the mentally ill was held to be a reasonable restriction on their right to bear children, with the Justice writing for the majority ending his opinion with the memorable line of, "three generations of idiots are enough".

About 10 years later, the same Supreme Court said that it was perfectly fine for FDRs War Department to round up and detain American citizens of Japanese ancestry, and confiscate and sell their property. Somewhere in my constitution is says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law". They weren't afforded any opportunity to challenge their loss of liberty. Or property.

As late as the end of the 1960s, many states denied married couples access to artificial birth control, and denied the right of any non-white to marry a white.

It's fundamental constitutional law--at least since the turn of the 19th century---that individual rights can be subordinated to a "compelling state interest". Every lawyer learns this in first year Con Law.

 

 

Let's be honest, though. You push any of those decisions a little bit further, and that's what revolutions are made from......

 

"Constitutional" or not..... Especially since a "compelling state interest" is in the eye of the beholder. Least under any attempt to define that I have ever seen.....

 

The definition of "compelling", from what I gathered from Con Law, was whatever could get past the gag reflex of 5 Justices.

"…if catching fish is your only objective, you are either new to the game or too narrowly focused on measurable results.” - D. Stuver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just sayin what you sounded like to me.its not a personal attack but rather an emotional response to something that i would never expect to hear from someone such as yourself & in youre profession.i have a few family members who practice law & this has given me something to discuss with them over the holiday,not to point & critize but to help give more knowledge concerning todays opinions & views of people in power & people who represent people in court.if the majority of people think this way i wanna know cause up till a few minutes ago i thought they were few & far between.

its hard tellin, not knowin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just sayin what you sounded like to me.its not a personal attack but rather an emotional response to something that i would never expect to hear from someone such as yourself & in youre profession.i have a few family members who practice law & this has given me something to discuss with them over the holiday,not to point & critize but to help give more knowledge concerning todays opinions & views of people in power & people who represent people in court.if the majority of people think this way i wanna know cause up till a few minutes ago i thought they were few & far between.

 

 

My personal opinions would allow to chose whether to represent someone or not, but never would my personal opinions prevent me from representing my client to the best of my abilities.

 

And, I am hardly a "person in power". Oddly enough, I was one of the first PDs to really work the firearrm angle with my clients- we ended fighting, and often successfully, the allegations of domestic violence.

I would ******* LOVE a grave blanket. icon14.gif
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just sayin what you sounded like to me.its not a personal attack but rather an emotional response to something that i would never expect to hear from someone such as yourself & in youre profession.i have a few family members who practice law & this has given me something to discuss with them over the holiday,not to point & critize but to help give more knowledge concerning todays opinions & views of people in power & people who represent people in court.if the majority of people think this way i wanna know cause up till a few minutes ago i thought they were few & far between.

 

Here's how I can make it very simple. In fact, I am going to intentionally over-simplify it:

 

Both liberals and conservatives are statists--they believe in the power of the state to regulate human conduct. When it comes to people violating another person's right to life, liberty and property, criminal conduct that all civilized societies think is wrong, there's really nothing to argue about. The arguments start when the state is empowered to regulate consensual conduct among people.

 

Liberals want the state to regulate the boardroom, but not the bedroom.

 

Conservatives want the state to regulate the bedroom, but not the boardroom.

 

It comes down, at that point, to values. Values are subjective. But, most people "value" their values, and vote for politicians who they believe share their values. Those politicians then appoint judges cut from the same cloth.

 

That's why libertarians refer to themselves as "objectivists". They think that governments should only regulate and prohibit conduct which violates another person's right to life, liberty or property. But since they never get elected, they can't appoint like-minded judges.

"…if catching fish is your only objective, you are either new to the game or too narrowly focused on measurable results.” - D. Stuver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I can make it very simple. In fact, I am going to intentionally over-simplify it:

Both liberals and conservatives are statists--they believe in the power of the state to regulate human conduct. When it comes to people violating another person's right to life, liberty and property, criminal conduct that all civilized societies think is wrong, there's really nothing to argue about. The arguments start when the state is empowered to regulate consensual conduct among people.

Liberals want the state to regulate the boardroom, but not the bedroom.

Conservatives want the state to regulate the bedroom, but not the boardroom.

It comes down, at that point, to values. Values are subjective. But, most people "value" their values, and vote for politicians who they believe share their values. Those politicians then appoint judges cut from the same cloth.

That's why libertarians refer to themselves as "objectivists". They think that governments should only regulate and prohibit conduct which violates another person's right to life, liberty or property. But since they never get elected, they can't appoint like-minded judges.

 

They also are in favor of brining.:D

I would ******* LOVE a grave blanket. icon14.gif
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I can make it very simple. In fact, I am going to intentionally over-simplify it:

Both liberals and conservatives are statists--they believe in the power of the state to regulate human conduct. When it comes to people violating another person's right to life, liberty and property, criminal conduct that all civilized societies think is wrong, there's really nothing to argue about. The arguments start when the state is empowered to regulate consensual conduct among people.

Liberals want the state to regulate the boardroom, but not the bedroom.

Conservatives want the state to regulate the bedroom, but not the boardroom.

It comes down, at that point, to values. Values are subjective. But, most people "value" their values, and vote for politicians who they believe share their values. Those politicians then appoint judges cut from the same cloth.

That's why libertarians refer to themselves as "objectivists". They think that governments should only regulate and prohibit conduct which violates another person's right to life, liberty or property. But since they never get elected, they can't appoint like-minded judges.

 

They also are in favor of brining.:D

 

And abhor the mechanized initiation of force against snow.

"…if catching fish is your only objective, you are either new to the game or too narrowly focused on measurable results.” - D. Stuver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of how many justices can be placed on the head of a pin can be argued indefinitely.

The matter is ultimately settled by the answer to this question, "For how many men does the motto "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" command their souls?".

For the moment, kones, we may rest assured, the number is still sufficient.

 

 

"...we used a tracking method."  - Dale Monroe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of how many justices can be placed on the head of a pin can be argued indefinitely.

The matter is ultimately settled by the answer to this question, "For how many men does the motto "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" command their souls?".

For the moment, kones, we may rest assured, the number is still sufficient.

 

Well played, sir.

I would ******* LOVE a grave blanket. icon14.gif
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...