tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post3193880474649075544..comments2024-03-25T07:29:08.216-04:00Comments on 2 Political Junkies: Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz On Abortion, Marriage EqualityMariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-14695225546422326582016-04-08T19:32:40.192-04:002016-04-08T19:32:40.192-04:00Ummmm..its not about the police use of these weapo...Ummmm..its not about the <i>police</i> use of these weapons (although, I fully agree that too many officers are far to quick to use them, but remember, the alternative to the taser is to strike with a baton)its about the <i>publics</i> use of them. Also, passing a law that fails to meet Constitiutional muster is not defiance. Defiance is the failure to comply with a decision once rendered. The example you give simply doesn't fit. And why are you bringing Miller into it? Tasers are not in "common use" by the public. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/265/ Try again.Ol' Frothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11001073150811372903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-5288704993263612682016-04-08T08:15:19.828-04:002016-04-08T08:15:19.828-04:00How a court is supposed to reason
The Common use t...<i> How a court is supposed to reason</i><br />The Common use test of Miller. <br />But Ignorance of law does not apply to Government agents.<br /><br />OT Rant<br />"electronic stun/compliance weapons"<br />compliance weapons? compliance weapons? more like torture weapons to show the citizen/subject command presence.<br />Tell a cop he is wrong about the law and get tased.<br />http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-officer-fired-video-tasing-76-year-old-man-article-1.2066895Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™https://www.blogger.com/profile/14533575674043719198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-4371715417936145652016-04-07T14:00:57.640-04:002016-04-07T14:00:57.640-04:00Again, that is not defiance. Defiance, in the con...Again, that is not defiance. Defiance, in the context of Cruz's comments would be the President ignoring the Court's ruling, not a lower court misinterpreting the higher court's decision. I haven't read the Heller decision in its entirety, but Heller dealt with the possession of <i>firearms</i>. How a court is supposed to reason that it also applies to electronic stun/compliance weapons isn't entirely clear. As I typed, show me a Democratic politician advocating that the President ignore a court ruling.Ol' Frothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11001073150811372903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-5447423118971299012016-04-06T23:05:01.030-04:002016-04-06T23:05:01.030-04:00"scolded the Massachusetts court for its fail..."scolded the Massachusetts court for its failure to apply the proper legal tests under D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago"<br /><br />Just ignore the actions of Washington DC.Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™https://www.blogger.com/profile/14533575674043719198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-82166888375999695292016-04-06T17:30:18.536-04:002016-04-06T17:30:18.536-04:00Ummm, how is that defiance? The Caetano decision ...Ummm, how is that defiance? The Caetano decision is the first time the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applied to stun guns. Try again.Ol' Frothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11001073150811372903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-23161763894557548832016-04-06T13:33:27.084-04:002016-04-06T13:33:27.084-04:00Not only advocating but actually doing it
https://...Not only advocating but actually doing it<br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/supreme-court-zaps-massachusetts-stun-gun-opinion/<br />"Today, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that had concluded that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not apply to stun guns. The Court’s per curiam opinion scolded the Massachusetts court for its failure to apply the proper legal tests under D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and quite rightly so."<br /><br />Washington, D.C., defies the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling.<br />http://reason.com/archives/2008/07/23/excuse-me-while-i-get-my-gun<br />HYPOCRISY from the Left- Contempt for Davis but Not DC?<br />http://www.cardenchronicles.com/2015/09/hypocrisy-from-left-contempt-for-davis.html<br />Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™https://www.blogger.com/profile/14533575674043719198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-13730104985005448912016-04-06T11:37:20.114-04:002016-04-06T11:37:20.114-04:00Please point to examples where Democratic elected...Please point to examples where Democratic elected official or candidates is advocating for governmental defiance of Citizen's United or Heller. Sure, you can find advocating for Constitutional amendments or possible repeal in the future by a more liberal court, but not defiance.Ol' Frothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11001073150811372903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-9469037040050176802016-04-06T08:47:56.449-04:002016-04-06T08:47:56.449-04:00Except that the Supreme Court said it was. And th...<i>Except that the Supreme Court said it was. And they should know. They're the Supreme Court. </i><br />Except in the Cases of Citizen's United and Heller/McDonald.<br /><br />Appeal to Authority Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™https://www.blogger.com/profile/14533575674043719198noreply@blogger.com