Texas Court Rules That Police May Introduce Illegally-Gathered Evidence At Trial
- Thread starter diveRN
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
rushthezeppelin
TGT Addict
This. It was never the intention of the founding fathers for the SCOTUS to be the final word on what is Constitutional. The language is pretty clear throughout the whole Bill of Rights, but unfortunately our politicians have done a marvelous job of sowing the seeds of doubt in the populace for the past 100+ years then conveniently offered a solution in having political appointees decide.
Article III where they call it the supreme court. Courts already were ruling on the constitutionality of state laws per State Consttutions even before they finished the Constitution. Arguing that the supreme court in the US was never granted the power to decide the constitutionality of law is just ........ I'm trying to say it without being insulting but I don't have a neutral way to do so
What bothers me more, the SCOTUS has ruled on laws and has ADMITTED that they violate the constitution, yet allow then to stand in spite of that admitted fact.
So what's the fucking point if having a Bill of Rights if our infallible SCOTUS rules that laws which violate our rights are still enforceable?
So what's the fucking point if having a Bill of Rights if our infallible SCOTUS rules that laws which violate our rights are still enforceable?
breakingcontact
TGT Addict
But there has been a precedent set! Argh!
Because life is complicated, nothing is perfect,and we don't live life in a vacuum. Not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater violates my freedom of speech but you also have to look at the consequences of doing so and how big of a violation it is compared to the needs of society.
To falsely shout fire is against the law. Speak designed to cause panic and or obscenity is not protected speech even though I have a constitutional right to free speech. I'm not surprised you find it a bad example, because it pop's your little bubble. I think it makes my point just fine.
It isn't bs it was an example used by a scotus justice to try and give an example that people could understand to explain that he found that there were limits to free speech and in particular speech designed to panic was not and would not be considered protected. As for what someone else may have used that example for have little effect on this discussion and is a logical fallacy designed to attack my argument without actually addressing it. That someone else made a similar argument, which you can't even be bothered to give any attribution to, does not have effect on the logic or facts in my argument.
But shouting fire in itself, is not against the law. It becomes a legal issue when it violates the rights of someone else, in this case, right to life. If you are creating a situation that endangers an innocent persons life you are breaking the law because you have no right to do that.
They are using that logic to uphold weapons bans as well as other infringements. In the case if guns, they are saying that you owning the gun endangers someone's life. That is like saying that having the ability to yell "fire" should be banned because someone might do it in order to cause a panic and hurt people.
At any rate, it is illegal to cause a panic for no reason, not yell "fire" in a theatre. If it were, we would need a defense to prosecution for cases in which there was an actual fire.
Well the word falsely was actually in the written opinion so only when false would it be illegal but isn't that the whole point? Pretending that anyone would be saying it was illegal to raise an alarm during an actual fire? Get real! This is such a well know point anyone making it would assume you would understand the whole "No Fire" bit. Then you repeated what I wrote like you are revealing something and proving me wrong? They are using that example to show that no right is unlimited and it is a valid and important point but honestly either you don't get it or are trying real hard to keep from understanding it. I blame it on the schools. Back in my day they taught this stuff.
Yes, attack my education. Very nice.
And you ignored the point of the post, which is why not every law is an infringement. I don't have a right to do things that infringe on the rights of others.
Is it an infringement on my right to swing my arm because I can't punch people in the nose?
My rights stop at the point that they violate the rights of others. I explained in my last post how they use the "fire in a theatre" logic against gun owners, but you chose to ignore that part.
You don't ban a word because someone might use it in a way that harms others, you make it illegal to use it in that way. The SCOTUS upholds a ban on a gun using a logic that would require the word itself to be banned. But we don't ban the word, that would be ridiculous. So why do we ban other things, why do we allow other violations of our rights which don't violate the rights of others?
Those are infringements. Just like dems would not stop at a mag capacity ban, the incremental infringements on our rights will not stop either. There will always be another scary threat.
How much of you 4th amendment are you willing to give up? How many "minor infringements" will it take to make sure everyone is safe?
The Bill of Rights did not have a disclaimer at the end. Hell, they even pointed out at one point "shall not be infringed". These rights were not meant to be neutered by the government, they were meant to be protected from the government.
So ignore what you wish, pick the parts of my post that are not as relevant and quote them, insult my intelligence, ignore the point of the post if you wish. Hell, you can even accuse me of "militia group think", whatever the hell that is. I've advocated nothing. Only pointed out the obvious, which you are choosing to ignore.
If you really feel that all the infringements to your rights are justified, you need to really look at what is happening around you and the course we have been on for quite sometime now.
And you ignored the point of the post, which is why not every law is an infringement. I don't have a right to do things that infringe on the rights of others.
Is it an infringement on my right to swing my arm because I can't punch people in the nose?
My rights stop at the point that they violate the rights of others. I explained in my last post how they use the "fire in a theatre" logic against gun owners, but you chose to ignore that part.
You don't ban a word because someone might use it in a way that harms others, you make it illegal to use it in that way. The SCOTUS upholds a ban on a gun using a logic that would require the word itself to be banned. But we don't ban the word, that would be ridiculous. So why do we ban other things, why do we allow other violations of our rights which don't violate the rights of others?
Those are infringements. Just like dems would not stop at a mag capacity ban, the incremental infringements on our rights will not stop either. There will always be another scary threat.
How much of you 4th amendment are you willing to give up? How many "minor infringements" will it take to make sure everyone is safe?
The Bill of Rights did not have a disclaimer at the end. Hell, they even pointed out at one point "shall not be infringed". These rights were not meant to be neutered by the government, they were meant to be protected from the government.
So ignore what you wish, pick the parts of my post that are not as relevant and quote them, insult my intelligence, ignore the point of the post if you wish. Hell, you can even accuse me of "militia group think", whatever the hell that is. I've advocated nothing. Only pointed out the obvious, which you are choosing to ignore.
If you really feel that all the infringements to your rights are justified, you need to really look at what is happening around you and the course we have been on for quite sometime now.
breakingcontact
TGT Addict
I find it strange that after we have our Constitutional rights violated, we are then supposed to appeal to the same courts that are allowing our rights to be violated.
Again by this logic the founding fathers should have just kept begging the king for more rights...you know...the same king who was limiting their rights.
We are getting to the point where many US Senators believe we are in or near a constitutional crisis due to the imbalance of powers. The rights in the Constitution are the peoples rights. They aren't rights administered by government on a limited basis when the police are cool with it.
Again by this logic the founding fathers should have just kept begging the king for more rights...you know...the same king who was limiting their rights.
We are getting to the point where many US Senators believe we are in or near a constitutional crisis due to the imbalance of powers. The rights in the Constitution are the peoples rights. They aren't rights administered by government on a limited basis when the police are cool with it.
