Chris Hadlock

Chris Hadlock 1 day, 3 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

I cannot answer that question except to say that we are human and live with an imperfect human system. When The Congress passes a law, you are required to comply with that law. When the Supreme Court says a law is legitimate you are required to adhere to that law.

This is true as long as you call yourself a US Citizen. Your "opinion" about various laws does not change your obligation to comply. Likewise, your interpretation of Constitutional law does not change the actual system that makes and enforces those laws. You are required to follow them and are allowed to work within the system to effect change. You are also allowed to scream your beliefs from the rooftops and public forums.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 day, 6 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

Your words, not mine.

I made no comparisons, but I did point out the similarity. I am sure the readers of this discussion can each form their own opinion about your words.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 day, 6 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

Unlike those of us on these forums, the Supreme Court writes "rulings" not "opinions". Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, as a US Citizen you are required to honor those decisions.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 day, 11 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

In multiple posts, Houser seemed obsessed with comparing America to Iran. On January 18, 2014, he posted a screed about censorship in response to a thread on coverage of Chris Christie’s scandals versus those of President Obama. “The US heavily censors. Why wouldn’t they twist. You say there is no censorship?” he wrote. ”Tell me how I can read any of the 30 newspapers printed in Iran. How to find White rights groups on the internet. What your computer gives you when you type AMERICA CENSORS INTERNET, or censors anything.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/24/inside-the-mind-of-john-russel-houser.html

Sound like anyone on this forum?

0

Chris Hadlock 2 days, 2 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

Mark, I know it drives you nuts, but the law has said that Jim Crow laws and poll taxes are not allowed. By the same token, the courts have consistently given the Government the ability to make common sense regulation about guns. You know that both of these things are true, so why the apples and oranges comparison?

0

Chris Hadlock 3 days, 12 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

"What happened in Philly in 1787 was a bloodless coup."

"The convention that produced the Constitution was a deception and conspiracy – a coup d'etat which undid much of what was accomplished in the War of Independence"

Fallback position for when the actual Constitution does not say what you want it to say? Good Luck with that.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 days, 14 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
0

Chris Hadlock 3 days, 14 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. When even Justice Scalia says you are wrong about your assumed rights, it should make one reconsider.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 days, 14 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Militia purpose of law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week ago on Road rage incident results in felony arrest

Ken, I am not arguing for a change in gun laws.

What I am saying is that a higher level of training for anyone that chooses to arm themselves in public places is required. Similar to a class 3 weapons permit.

Simply putting more weapons into public spaces will increase the number of public shootings. Those people that think they require that kind of power should be required to show a higher level of competence with their weapon. We demand that from those that drive larger commercial vehicles, why should it be any different with firearms?

0

Prev