Soxbadger

Something seems wrong here.

The sheriff is a *******.

In America its called a cum scarf.

No you arent, if you were a cop you would have made him bend over and touch his toes, while you searched for contraband with your nightstick.

Man boobs are not a stash.

Thats exactly what a cop would say.

1 post closer to catching SS2k?

Had some fun with TNA Resolution: http://flapship.com/tna-final-resolution-2012-in-pictures/

David Wilson could be a real surprise this week if Bradshaw's knee isn't 100%.

The show Sherlock is pretty solid.

That sucks, I am so sorry to hear that.

I was being lazy its a message board. I meant in defining marriage. If the govt wants to give out benefits to married people, thats their choice, they just need to make sure its done equally. I just assumed that was a given as there is really no reason the govt shouldnt be able to create laws for convenience.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) I'm going to wind up with a derail here, but I don't care because this is a complete copout. Should spouses be able to be forced to testify against their husbands? Should there be no recognition of spousal relations in terms of estate planning/death benefits/insurance laws (i.e. if a person leaves an estate to their spouse, should it be subject to the estate tax, and then taxed again if that spouse dies)? If a parent dies, should there be no recognition of the existence of a spouse in terms of deciding custody of a child? It's nonsensical. None of these things have to do with marriage. They all have to do with the govt giving "rights" to people. I dont care what you call it, as long as it is equal. If 2 straight people get a spousal privilege, 2 gay people should. If 2 straight people can avoid taxes, 2 gay people should. I dont see why you have to say "marriage is constitutionally protected", we created laws out of convenience, the laws have to be equal, its not very difficult. If it wasnt clear, I wasnt saying that the govt shouldnt be able to create laws for convenience, I was saying that the govt should have no real ability to say when consenting adults can marry. (And the biggest issue there is polygamy.)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) Who in 1780 were the masses. The cases we're talking about here do a pretty good job going over the historical context of the amendment. It didn't say, and was not intended to mean, that ONLY people in an existing militia had the right to bear arms. It was that everyone has the right in case a regulated militia was required to combat a government that was out of control. To play your game, either your going to be a strict textualist and disagree with this assessment (also admitting that there is no right to privacy or marriage or whatever else has been read into the constitution because the constitution doesn't provide for ti) or you're going to have to admit that the context is what is important and the context isn't really debatable IMO. I dont believe that marriage is a right. I dont believe the govt should have any role in marriage (pro or con). If a church wants to marry you, great, if they dont want to marry you, why should I care. The argument is actually an equal protection argument, that the govt is giving rights to a certain subset that it is not giving to another subset. Which is also explicitly in the constitution. 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Also, I do believe right to privacy is explicitly in the constitution: 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Isnt invasion of privacy a "unreasonable search" which is explicitly delineated? Its also historically unclear whether the right was supposed to be individual or collective. I believe that its clear the amendment was written to allow for the govt to control guns and it places no limitation on the govts ability to due such. Which to me leaves it to the people to determine what controls are okay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) As a lawyer you know this isn't true. You know the arguments going into those decisions. Why are you making a grey issue so black and white? It's not that simple. You have a right to own and carry a gun, but there are restrictions. The lines in the sand that are drawn are important in determining what those restrictions should and should not be. Because the biggest argument against gun control is that its somehow unconstitutional. So if that is the case, then we cant control guns at all. Otherwise we start with the premise that gun control is constitutional, which means that guns shouldnt be given some sort of special protection. I completely understand grey issues, but whether something is or is not protected, needs to be determined so that we know what rules we are playing with. There can not be "grey" area in that regard. Unless we just say nothing in the constitution is black and white, which is the actual reality. And if that is the truth, then the constitution doesnt really matter, all that matters is how we currently interpret it. Which goes to my original argument, that my interpretation of the constitution does not protect individual citizens right to own guns at all. It protects the rights of those in a regulated militia.

Since when do statistics matter when it comes to rights? Either 1) the govt can regulate or 2) the govt cant regulate. After that, its just simply drawing fake lines in the sand.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) But it's infringing on a constitutional right that requires a higher standard than the standard that applies to your non-existent right to smoke pot or bang a hooker. I know what your saying and I don't disagree, all i'm saying is there's a reason why different standards and considerations are used in determining the legality of those acts. I'm all about letting people drink alcohol, but i'm totally behind the idea that you shouldn't be able to stroll down my street getting drunk with a bunch of kids around. That doesn't mean my stance of limited government generally is somehow less valid. It's not an all or nothing scenario. I disagree with that interpretation of the constitution. Words mean something. The words "regulated" and "militia" are not superfluous they have meaning. The fact Illinois was allowed to adopt a constitution that specifically limits gun ownership pursuant to police power, means something. And the part in bold is what many people who want gun control believe. I just dont believe that our lives should be determined by a sentence that is over 200 years old and up to interpretation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) But what if the court date is 200 days from now? Can I be convicted and sentenced/fined for a law that was ruled unconstitutional? Why wouldn't the courts simply rule it unconstitutional again and overturn my conviction? Presumably because the court was telling the legislators to draft the law in a way that fits their ruling so that they can say its okay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) And by law you're legally able to drink up to that .08 but with guns you can't have it except with an overly restricted exception of being in your home. And that's the problem with Illinois law. You act as if I'm arguing gun rights should be limitless or something. What I am arguing is that the people of Illinois decided that having guns in public places is a danger. Based on the govts ability to restrict other similarly dangerous activity, that seems reasonable. Instead of alcohol replace it with marijuana, and I am not even allowed to do that in my own home. Replace it with buying hookers, and I am not allowed to do it in my home. So based on the fact the govt is allowed to completely ban certain activity, restricting gun ownership to the home seems reasonable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:15 PM) question for the lawyers: the opinion is stayed 180 days to give the legislature time to craft some alternative, Constitution-complying restrictions. What would happen to somebody who violated the current law in the next 180 days? It's already been ruled unconstitutional. Its the law for another 180 days. Otherwise there is no point in the stay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) One involves the inability to control your actions, the other does not. That's not really comparable. That is a completely faulty premise. Some people can drive fine at .08, some people can not. Some people can handle a gun fine, some people can not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) So you're cool getting rid of DUI laws? That's your logic here. If youre cool with giving everyone guns, Im cool with no DUI laws. Both presuppose that you are going to do something to hurt someone else. Driving drunk in and of itself, doesnt hurt anyone.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, in a very general sense we're talking about how far government can intervene, but by your logic if the government can't restrict guns then it can't restrict anything. That's not reality and you know it. We have public policy arguments and I think guns are different from drugs or sex or whatever else. Each has to be looked at independently. Why are guns, sex and drugs different? Each of them makes you feel good, each of them could maybe save your life when they are used in the right circumstances, each of them could potentially cause harm to someone else. And its not my logic, I dont prescribe to this fantasy land where drugs and guns are different. My logic is that the govt has the right to protect other people, but should not have the right to prevent me from doing something just because it may hurt someone else. Thus, my logic, is that if you want guns, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone with a gun, something bad happens to you. If you want drugs, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone will taking drugs, something bad happens to you. See how that logically makes sense.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) I'm still not sure how someone can interpret the 2nd amended and believe that the founders believed it was important for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY in your home. What purpose does that serve? Posner talks about this in his opinion and his answer is it doesn't. Historically there's no reason to believe that's what they believed, and grammatically it doesn't because it does not limit where your right begins and ends. I dont think the constitution protects gun ownership for regular people at all. It provides protection for those of us who are in the militia. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And here even more interesting is the Illinois Constitution: SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So I disagree. I think that the 2nd Amendment has explicit limitations and those limitations are supported by the Illinois constitution. Otherwise the Illinois constitution is itself unconstitutional, because it gave a right to the state that surpasses what the US constitution allowed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) "Counsel, how is that relevant to the issue before me?" As I said, its leverage. If you want to pretend we live in a vacuum where gun rights people are not hypocritical, so be it. But I am going to live in the real world, where the arguments I am making, are winning arguments against the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. If those arguments are losers when it comes to restricting guns, they should be losers when it comes to restricting drugs, sex, etc. Basically, dont use the "I dont like govt interference" argument, unless you really want to limit govt interference.