Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Feds going after the states with SD laws...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by CoRoMo, May 8, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,953
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    I have my doubts that it would greatly influence a large number of the states with these laws/protections. I have even greater doubts that such a bill will pass in the first place. But it definitely gives you the perspective of our elected officials.



    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/



     
  2. mr.scott

    mr.scott Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    353
    It wouldn't stand up against the first lawsuit brought against it. They have no grounds to enforce such a law. If it spasses, every citizen in a state it effects should then have the right to not pay federal taxes.

    The democrats in this country want nothing more than a subjugated populace that agrees lock step with anything they are told. The higher ups in the party want everyone except them to be poor, defenseless, and jobless.
     
  3. joecil

    joecil Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Location:
    Lexington, Kentucky
    I no doubt it won't pass the house or even get out of committee. If it did I don't think it would make it through the senate either but not as sure of the senate.
     
  4. smalls

    smalls Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,433
    Location:
    Macomb County, MI
    Do these politicians even read the SYG laws? Or do they just read the headlines?
     
  5. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,953
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    I know what the second word of the article is. I just ask that it not be the subject of any post made in my thread.

    Please.

    Thank you.

    One of the lines from the article that I found astonishing was the one about [strike]'"'Shoot-first'[/strike] [Self-defense] laws have already cost too many lives... deaths due to self defense have tripled' since FL's law was enacted.

    :confused: So... in regards to violent crime/assaults... which life (victim vs. aggressor) would they prefer to preserve? Because we can assume that violent crime/assault often results in the end of a life or at the very least an injury. So which party to the act, could everyone agree, deserves such a result?
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  6. Kush

    Kush Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    132
    They have been doing this for a while now, its the same way that they raised the drinking age to 21, if it was illegal for them to do so there would have probably been a lawsuit one of the other time they withheld money for some reason.
     
  7. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,717
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Agreed.

    We don't do political party bashing here. It's not high road. Nor do we do politics in general.

    Keep this focused and respectful or it ends.
     
  8. Teachu2

    Teachu2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    2,116
    Location:
    Keene, CA
    Neither - their handlers read them biased (or even accurate) poll results so they can pander to the largest number of voting morons possible.
     
  9. AZ

    AZ Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    125
    Location:
    The Great State of Arizona
    I am going to take the high road and not get into a political battle on a gun forum that is free of much of the internet's juvenile bickering. Sufficed to say your comment was a gross over-generalization. As well, there are many Democrats on this forum who would take great offense to your notion of all of them being anti-gun (FYI I generally vote Republican). To dispel that notion stance on gun rights is almost entirely regional, which accounts for why Harry Reid has a considerably better 2nd Amendment record than a Massachusetts boy like Mitt.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2012
  10. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    17,298
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Stand your ground is aprinciple based in english common law and backed up by a ton of case law. I dont see going much beyond some sound bites
     
  11. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    If the attacker is losing their life at the hands of the saved victim, then the numbers would come out as a wash instead of a three-fold increase.

    The article doesn't explicitly mention the possibility of there being unjustified homicides being miscategorized as justified homicides. We wouldn't have even known about Martin if not for the press and the leaks from inside the department.

    In the case of laws that specifically apply financial damages, it further disincentivizes the proper investigation because overworked and understaffed police departments not only take the loss of investigative resources but damages for performing police work. Then again, that is the goal of the legal system to avoid putting the innocent person in jail at the expense of letting the guilty go free.
     
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,717
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Whether or not your neighbors, co-workers, and people in your community who don't vote for the politicians you'd favor are morons is perhaps debatable. But as long as you insist on demeaning and denigrating them, you'll have little or no chance to change the ways they think, or vote.

    And of course politicians pander to the majority. That's how they get and stay elected.

    It's fashionable to blame politicians. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

    So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep and expand our gun rights needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. We need to engage and include as many of them as we can. Calling them morons won't help.

    Standing your ground in your home is a fundamental principle under Common Law and well supported historically in case law. But places other than your home or place of business -- not so much. And civil immunity is also a fairly new development.
     
  13. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Peoples Republik of New Jersey
    I think you are wrong.

    Feds can withhold Federal money for all sorts of reasons, like withholding Federal Highway money if a state does not make 55 MPH the speed limit or 21 the drinking age.
     
  14. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    The ability to withhold funds does not equate to grounds to make and enforce a law. The Federal government has strong-armed states into doing its will many times, and every time it's been a violation of Constitutional federal powers.

    Trouble is, the states are so dependent on Federal $ that they see themselves as having little choice.

    I say, regarding state assemblies and governors, it's time for them to grow a spine.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  15. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Peoples Republik of New Jersey
    Not so, Federal Government does not need to give the states money, and can put restrictions on its distribution.

    "If you don't like my rules don't play in my game."
     
  16. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,784
    Location:
    DFW Area
    The "stand your ground laws" are more accurately described as "innocent until proven guilty laws".

    In the absence of a stand your ground law, the burden of proof rests on the defender to prove that he did everything he could to avoid shooting. Basically he was assumed to be guilty until he could prove his innocence.

    The stand your ground laws don't prevent the state from prosecuting someone for shooting when deadly force is unnecessary (illegal), it just puts the burden of proof on the state to prove that the defender had other reasonable alternatives to shooting but chose to use deadly force instead.
     
  17. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,717
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Not until a court says so.
     
  18. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    This is an incomplete picture, except in the cases where there is no civil immunity clause.
     
  19. yinyangdc

    yinyangdc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    There is a difference between what is in the constitution and operational law based on supreme court decisions.
     
  20. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,717
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Which means exactly what in the real world?

    Here's the deal. The opinion of a court on matters of law, such as whether or not a law is constitutional, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such things and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
     
  21. ohgrady

    ohgrady Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    Southern IL
  22. stickhauler

    stickhauler Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    538
    Kinda figured that would happen because they ain't got a shot in hell of getting it passed. The example of raising the drinking age to 21 was cited as a issue they dealt with where no court struck it down. Guess what, there ain't no right to drink listed in the Bill of Rights!
     
  23. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Frank, I will agree that in a legal sense a law is not unconstitutional until the court system so rules. That doesn't change the fact that we can all read the law and compare what it requires of us to what the Constitution allows the Federal government to require of its people.

    A huge part of the problem is that both the states and the people have become so accustomed to allowing federal officials to overstep their Constitutional boundaries that we rarely even question them anymore. And they know it. Apparently this one may have been an exception.

    And when this difference exists, what is the supreme law of the United States? Does any federal oath of office include a promise to support and defend case law?
     
  24. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,431
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    The federal government has tied federal funding to all kinds of stuff including raising the legal age to drink booze to 21. The states have become so addicted to federal money they can't wean themselves off the dole.
     
  25. Colonel

    Colonel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    What makes you think they even know how to read?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page