2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: RSN172 on June 08, 2017, 10:10:46 AM
-
The Michigan House of Representatives just passed a bill to allow permitless CCW. It now goes to the state senate. Current law requires a gun owner to obtain a permit. During the debate, Rep Lee Chatfield said criminals do not obey gun laws in any way and every law-abiding citizen has a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon for their own safety. He said, "Criminals do not obey the law. Criminals don't obey the gun laws we have now. And criminals won't obey the new gun laws we pass. That is why they're called criminals. I wholeheartedly believe allowing law-abiding citizens the opportunity to have the same freedoms that criminals already do in this state will make our communities safer."
Rep Michele Hoitenga, the bill's sponsor said, "We all know criminals are not paying fees, taking classes and waiting for approval to come in the mail before they begin carrying guns. This legislation levels the playing field for honest people."
-
In other words there are at least some legislators in Michigan (and almost all the other states) that follow the evidence, use critical thinking skills to analyze "arguments" and "evidence", and actually believe they have a duty to uphold the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution ("[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")... the exact opposite of Hawaii.
PS How'd you do with the earthquake up there?
-
I never felt the earthquake.
-
AFAIK, this can become the law in any State. If anyone was harmed financially or emotionally by the law, they can challenge in court. SCOTUS has declared that handgun CCW is not a Constitutional right so will likely be overturned. As we all know, that could take a long time (if at all), especially if Ginsburg and Kennedy are replaced by Scalia clones. As long as the Sixth Circuit doesn't overturn the law, it will remain on the books.
-
AFAIK, this can become the law in any State. If anyone was harmed financially or emotionally by the law, they can challenge in court. SCOTUS has declared that handgun CCW is not a Constitutional right so will likely be overturned. As we all know, that could take a long time (if at all), especially if Ginsburg and Kennedy are replaced by Scalia clones. As long as the Sixth Circuit doesn't overturn the law, it will remain on the books.
Twelve states already have permitless concealed carry. About (depending on the exact definitions) 40 states have permitless open carry.
Hawaii has no carry, no way, no how.
What "emotional harm" would be the basis for a successful lawsuit?
There is a vast difference between "CCW is not a Constitutional right" and states granting "a privilege" in whatever form of it they deem proper. What makes you think any of the permitless CCW carry laws will be overturned?
-
That's how the judicial process works. You have to be financially or emotionally harmed in order to file a case. For example, someone with a CCW shot me and it caused financial and emotional stress. Why are you asking basic questions?
-
AFAIK, this can become the law in any State. If anyone was harmed financially or emotionally by the law, they can challenge in court. SCOTUS has declared that handgun CCW is not a Constitutional right so will likely be overturned. As we all know, that could take a long time (if at all), especially if Ginsburg and Kennedy are replaced by Scalia clones. As long as the Sixth Circuit doesn't overturn the law, it will remain on the books.
That's how the judicial process works. You have to be financially or emotionally harmed in order to file a case. For example, someone with a CCW shot me and it caused financial and emotional stress. Why are you asking basic questions?
Because what you say is, uh, wrong?
Notice that you change your requirement for filing a lawsuit from twice using "or", indicating that one could sue to overturn a law based exclusively on "emotional harm", to "and" if someone with a CCW shot you. Why would you change your twice stated criteria to something else?
It'll be simple for you to clear it up:
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was ruled void and nullified because the plaintiff was only "emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was ruled void and nullified because the plaintiff was "financially or emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was unsuccessfully challenged because the plaintiff was only "emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was unsuccessfully challenged because the plaintiff was "financially or emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was successfully ruled null and void for any reason of "harm" to the plaintiff.
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was unsuccessfully challenged for any reason of "harm" to the plaintiff.
Thank you for supporting your snide challenge to my questions with actual facts rather than hot air.
What "emotional harm" would be the basis for a successful lawsuit?
There is a vast difference between "CCW is not a Constitutional right" and states granting "a privilege" in whatever form of it they deem proper. What makes you think any of the permitless CCW carry laws will be overturned?
-
Here's a "public servant" law enforcement officer "explaining" why permitless carry is dangerous. Of course he supports carrying concealed weapons, but, at least for himself, but, and the people he thinks can meet the governments standards, but... and the fact that it can take many months to get a license is neither mentioned nor apparently any kind of "problem" for him. Note his failure to cite any corroborating evidence for his claim. Not one shred of evidence. Perhaps he went into a detailed 30 minute presentation of all the evidence that would support his claim and it was edited out by the tv station reporter. Sure.
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/fraternal-order-of-police-opposes-nc-gun-permit-bill/447184602
Fraternal Order of Police opposes NC gun permit bill
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police takes a stand against legislation that would allow gun owners to carry concealed without a permit.
"I'm not opposed to people carrying concealed weapons, I never leave home without one," said Randy Hagler, who serves as the President of the NC FOP and Chief of CMS Police.
[BUT...]
-
Because what you say is, uh, wrong?
Notice that you change your requirement for filing a lawsuit from twice using "or", indicating that one could sue to overturn a law based exclusively on "emotional harm", to "and" if someone with a CCW shot you. Why would you change your twice stated criteria to something else?
It'll be simple for you to clear it up:
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was ruled void and nullified because the plaintiff was only "emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was ruled void and nullified because the plaintiff was "financially or emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was unsuccessfully challenged because the plaintiff was only "emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was unsuccessfully challenged because the plaintiff was "financially or emotionally harmed".
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was successfully ruled null and void for any reason of "harm" to the plaintiff.
Give me three examples of actual lawsuits where a (permitless) CCW law was unsuccessfully challenged for any reason of "harm" to the plaintiff.
Thank you for supporting your snide challenge to my questions with actual facts rather than hot air.
What "emotional harm" would be the basis for a successful lawsuit?
There is a vast difference between "CCW is not a Constitutional right" and states granting "a privilege" in whatever form of it they deem proper. What makes you think any of the permitless CCW carry laws will be overturned?
Am I being graded? How much of this essay is part of my grade? Is it worth extra credit? Can I use range experience for credit?
-
Am I being graded? How much of this essay is part of my grade? Is it worth extra credit? Can I use range experience for credit?
That's what I thought. You spew a bunch of utter nonsense as if you're some authoritative expert and then when called on it don't provide even the slightest semblance of an answer. Because you have no answer.
-
Great for MI. And I think it was the Czech prime minister that said "how to stop a terrorist...shoot him".
-
Great for MI. And I think it was the Czech prime minister that said "how to stop a terrorist...shoot him".
I wonder if the Czech mainstream media is lambasting him 24 hours a day?
-
That's what I thought. You spew a bunch of utter nonsense as if you're some authoritative expert and then when called on it don't provide even the slightest semblance of an answer. Because you have no answer.
Yes, you win. :shake: :sleeping: