I met and talked / listened to the APD Police Chief

[Bithabus]

I think you've been bamboozled. Acevedo testified to the legislature against pro gun measures on several occasions. He is a typical California politician.

And backround checks "to protect the seller from civil liability"? That is pure nonsense. You are smarter than to be fooled by this guy Alan.

 

[biglucky]

Are you saying the Supreme Court does NOT interpret the constitution and make binding decisions on what is and is not constitutional?

And I am out there?

So when they ruled the law against homosexual conduct in Texas unconstitutional, they were not allowed to do that? The entire system of challenging laws up to the supreme court is just wrong and not allowed? Is that what you are telling me?

If you can find the word "INTERPRET" or even a period term from the late 1700's that would mean interpret in Article 3 of the constitution then I will agree with you. The word "Interpret" would mean that the judicial is given the power to decide what the text of the constitution, which is written in fairly plain English, says or doesn't say. What part of "shall not be infringed" can be inferred to say that "'reasonable' infringement would be ok"???

 

[srstaff]

And when did SCOTUS and their decisions become beyond reproach?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[dustycorgill]

If you can find the word "INTERPRET" or even a period term from the late 1700's that would mean interpret in Article 3 of the constitution then I will agree with you. The word "Interpret" would mean that the judicial is given the power to decide what the text of the constitution, which is written in fairly plain English, says or doesn't say. What part of "shall not be infringed" can be inferred to say that "'reasonable' infringement would be ok"???

^^^^^^^^^^

 

[TXARGUY]

Quick Google search

"Equal Justice Under Law . . ."
These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/supreme-court-and-constitutional-interpretation

 

[biglucky]

Quick Google search



The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation | Scholastic.com

Not sure I understand your point there.. That doesn't appear to be words in Article 3 of the constitution...

However it does illustrate part of the overall problem that teachers are teaching kids this crap...

 

[TXARGUY]

However it does illustrate part of the overall problem that teachers are teaching kids this crap...

Sorry, that was my point. That's the Scholastic website.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

SO Mexican_Hippie is the authority, not the SCOTUS? I see.......

You finally get it! I like the way you're thinking! LOL

Really though, if you literally read Article 3 and the 11th amendment it doesn't specifically grant them the power to determine Constitutionality. The assumption that they have that power is no more of an assumption than states having the power to nullify laws they find out of line with the Constitution.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

At least that's my interpretation. As a non-lawyer, human being.

FYI, my opinion is worth exactly as much as you paid for it.

 

[London]

At this point I'd rather let Mexican Hippie decide what's constitutional than our SC!

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

At this point I'd rather let Mexican Hippie decide what's constitutional than our SC!

Why the hesitation bro? I should be your first choice! LOL

 

[Das Jared]

Your a lot better choice than another certain individual on here who really seems to be a closet police state/liberal person on here just happens to like guns.

sent from my dishwasher

 

[Das Jared]

Edit; i am not referring to alan either lol

sent from my dishwasher

 

[rushthezeppelin]

It's my view that background checks have the potential to create more theft. As we all know criminals will find a way to obtain a weapon if they are determined enough. By restricting them from obtaining one through conventional means it forces them to the black market. As we all know a good portion of black market guns are stolen from us law abiding citizens, sometimes with violence involved. All these laws do is put us more at risk if a ballsy enough BG learns we have guns.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[HKaltwasser]

I am taking a series of classes in the Austin Citizens Police Academy, and last night we got to meet our police chief, Art Acevedo. First off, if you haven't seen him in person he's definitely opinionated and emotional, but in a good way. He's not afraid to speak his mind and crack jokes at the cost of arguably deserving 3rd parties, or even at the cost of the department. Ultimately I left with a much more trusting and at-ease interpretation of him than I originally had.

I understand that he's been tied to increased gun control and some 2nd Amendment drama, but after hearing his side it made the issues look more like traditional wordsmithing and accusations on behalf of some 3rd parties and the media. He's largely a-political, his opinions are more data driven and end result motivated. While I don't necessarily always agree with him, I can definitely see why he so strongly believes in additional background checks. His reasons weren't to keep guns or a type of guns out of the hands of people, but two fold: To limit accessibility by felons and other scumbaggery (my word) via personal transactions, and secondly to protect the seller from civil liability.

The general impression and opinions I've gotten from APD officers is that he's largely cleaned up and fixed our police force. He absolutely hates liars and will fire them on the spot, a point he made very clear, but at the same time, he's going to back the badge if they are truthful and in the right. In fact, APD use of deadly force cases all go to grand jury, even though they don't have to. In that regard he's very big on transparency.

He also told me to tell everyone he's not anti-gun, LOL.

My opinion of him is based on his own words and actions. I have heard him on local stations speaking his anti gun opinions and he travels to meet with Doomberg on gun control?

I also hate liars and am not convinced he is telling you the truth. He stated himself that he likes the European type of gun control. It may not be anti gun in a world sens,e but is for sure anti gun in an American sense. He is more like , pro extreme gun control.....semantics----- shimantics. Luckily I have my Art Acevedo Bravo Sierra glasses on so I can still see.

You see, Chief of Police Departments are politicians, not officers in the traditional sense, so I take what they say very lightly until they slip up and hope nobody heard it. He seems to always be looking to further his political career.

 

[cbigclarke]

[
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[HKaltwasser]

By Ciara O'Rourke American-Statesman Staff
3 p.m. update: Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said a tweet he sent and then deleted Sunday night calling someone a “lying extremist” while discussing gun control was directed at one person he said repeatedly lies about him and calls him corrupt.
He said that user then misconstrued the tweet to suggest that Acevedo thinks people who support the Second Amendment are lying extremists.
Rather, Acevedo said he was responding to someone who resorts to slander when talking about contentious issues such as gun control.
Earlier: For months Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo has lobbied lawmakers to expand background checks to more gun sales. On Sunday night, the debate continued on Twitter, where the city’s top police officer sparred with users over the need for increased gun control.
It certainly wasn’t the first time Acevedo has engaged with the Twitter population and discussed why he thinks new gun restrictions are necessary. But some of his comments drew criticism on a conservative website that aggregates tweets.
The conversation seems to have started when the chief replied to a Twitter user who asked how many criminals will submit to a background check.
“They don’t have to they are buying firearms at gun shows & from straw purchasers,” Acevedo said.
According to Twitchy, Acevedo eventually replied to one user — and later deleted the tweet — saying, “I love that fact that I have pushed the button of your lying extremist undeveloped brain. Thank God for the rest of America!”
The chief couldn’t immediately be reached for comment but he explained to another user Monday morning that he deleted the tweet because “it was spun to be about something and people it wasn’t intended for.”
The comment was meant for someone “who tweets that I’m corrupt daily,” Acevedo said. “Not about (or) directed to anyone else

 

[Shorts]

He also told me to tell everyone he's not anti-gun, LOL.

To be fair, Mr Obama says the same thing.

Alan, I have no doubt Mr A was personable. Sounds like he really put your mind at ease. I'd caution you though to keep a healthy sense of scrutiny. A person can be nice and a 'great guy' (or gal) and still try to do things with the laws or politically that you or I don't want or agree with.

Who does want guns in criminal's hands? Certainly not you or me. Likely not many. But I don't approve of UBCs because it takes freedoms from me (perks if you will) in order to implement laws that would not do what they think it'll do. As for this 'civil liability' thing, first I've heard of that. Now I have heard of TX laws holding adults responsible for firearms getting into the hands of minors. But this 'civil liability' thing sounds like something the government kindly says 'Oh don't worry, we'll take care of it. All you have to do is sign here and we'll take care of everything to make sure you don't get in trouble in case something happens'. Uh, no thanks. That sounds like a Nigerian scam.

 

[Governors20]

Bat crap crazy people in power can justify anything and make it sound like a good idea. I work for a guy like this, and he is very personable and highly educated. What he says, versus what he does confuses the hell out of me.

 

[RetArmySgt]

At this point I'd rather let Mexican Hippie decide what's constitutional than our SC!

OH, OH, pick me, let me do it, I will take it at face value. Can we say bye bye oversized federal government.