Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Nemo, May 31, 2019.
and unconstitutional in Pennsylvania.
No background in the linked article so I dug this up.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opini... VacatedRemanded 10401172564400534.pdf?cb=1
jrm sent me a pdf of the opinion if somebody wants to host it. It's really good. It reads like a cut and past from this web site's posts back in 2005-09 time period, even discussing the same cases (Ubiles, etc.).
Let me know.
Fixed it for you. I'll pm you an email address so y9ou can send it to me. I'll host it on my server.
Sigh, if only that were the case in Georgia. Remember, we're the state where Judge William S.Duffey ruled that wearing an unconcealed firearm provided sufficient suspicion of a crime to warrant a detention of someone walking in public.
I thought this was fixed with HB60 or was it SB308. No?
You're right... and dumb ol' me didnt' even think about that until hours later.
... (b) A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.
Argh! A typo!
I sent it to you, Clint. Thank you.
The case you posted was one of the reasons the legislators added that to the law. They were pretty shocked that could happen just for legally carrying the way most of them carry, which is concealed.
This opinion reads like it was put together with cutting and pasting from the old days here on GPDO. Even the case law discussed is the same (Ubiles, etc.). You'll see what I mean when you read it.
Why write something lengthy just before going on vacation? You can copy and paste the content, plan your vacation and search for the preferred Air BnB locations, then release the opinion at the last second. After leaving town for the week you come back and read the news headlines.
Here's the link...
I linked the opinion in post #2.
I saw it was the same but hosted it anyway since I had agreed to do so. I'm not sure why they wanted a second host but it doesn't cost me anything to put it up.
I should have been clearer that it was the opinion. Oh, well.
LAW & THE COURTS
A Win for Gun Rights in Pennsylvania
By DAVID FRENCH June 5, 2019 3:51 PM
"The Pennsylvania supreme court rules that legal gun owners aren’t second-class constitutional citizens. SCOTUS, take note.
Earlier this week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a message that the United States Supreme Court desperately needs to hear: The lawful exercise of your Second Amendment rights does not make you a second-class citizen.
Here’s the context. For the last two years, federal courts — including, sadly, the Supreme Court — have endorsed a legal regime where police can use even the lawful exercise of gun rights as a pretext for the violation of other constitutional rights, principally our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Bravo SCOPA. Bravo!!!!
Bull crap. So we now have to pick and chose our Constitutional Rights. Select one forfeit another. How about we forfeit the Judge to another line of work like changing some of the 2 million diapers we just purchased for Illegals dirty butts at our southern boarder.
"In a concurring opinion, a federal circuit-court judge actually typed these words:"
"The majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes. . . . Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment."
I definitely I think our First Amendment rights are cutailed and should be limited when we fully exercise our Second Amendment rights to carry guns everywhere ---especially openly carry long guns when angerly protesting marching or doing a show of force at some politicians office.
Openly armed people are reasonably and naturally viewed as more threatening than unarmed people when both groups of people say hateful and rude things.
In other words, your right to be hateful and rude and a complete a-hole out in public (or in private talking with somebody whom you hold in contempt and are arguing with) is going to be diminished if you are armed.
You can get away with more abusive language when you are unarmed then when you are visibly armed.
I'm sorry I missed that part in the Constitution. What page was that on.