Sorry IB An Idiot and IFFY -- You Lose -- Again

Supreme Court won't rule on carrying guns in public

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ublic/7884041/


Thus the challenge to N.J.'s strict laws on issuing CHLs falls by the wayside and all states continue to have the right to restrict gun carrying outside the home if they so desire.

Supreme Court won't rule on carrying guns in public

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ublic/7884041/


Thus the challenge to N.J.'s strict laws on issuing CHLs falls by the wayside and all states continue to have the right to restrict gun carrying outside the home if they so desire. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yeah, you're an idiot, Speedy; from your own source:

A ruling in February from a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals changed the equation. The majority opinion struck down San Diego County's restrictions as a violation of Second Amendment rights.

"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home," the panel said. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."

Yeah, you're an idiot, Speedy; from your own source:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IDIOT. As I just said, by the fact that SCOTUS decided not to rule on guns in public, each state has the right to decide for themselves which course to pursue. A decision in California in no way affects a decision in any other state. IDIOT.

Do I have to go back to the thread in which you firmly supported this case making its way to the Supreme Court and the court ultimately supporting no requirement for CHLs in order to carry a concealed handgun???? IDIOT.

YOU LOST.

Supreme Court won't rule on carrying guns in public

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ublic/7884041/


Thus the challenge to N.J.'s strict laws on issuing CHLs falls by the wayside and all states continue to have the right to restrict gun carrying outside the home if they so desire. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And visa-versa.

Damn, I'm glad I live in Texas.

got my CHL TYVM

IDIOT. As I just said, by the fact that SCOTUS decided not to rule on guns in public, each state has the right to decide for themselves which course to pursue. A decision in California in no way affects a decision in any other state. IDIOT.

[/B][B]Do I have to go back to the thread in which you firmly supported this case making its way to the Supreme Court and the court ultimately supporting no requirement for CHLs in order to carry a concealed handgun???? IDIOT.

YOU LOST. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The argument in the other thread was and remains that the Supreme Court has not made an unambiguous ruling on that issue, Speedy; a fact, btw, which you just reasserted in your brainless post, Speedy. You're an idiot that is lost, Speedy.

The argument in the other thread was and remains that the Supreme Court has not made an unambiguous ruling on that issue, Speedy; a fact, btw, which you just reasserted in your brainless post, Speedy. You're an idiot that is lost, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You wanted this case to go to the Supreme Court. You wanted SCOTUS to rule that gun owners had the same rights to carry guns outside the home as they do inside the home. By deciding not to address the issue, SCOTUS has left the issue the same way it was -- each state determines for itself how difficult it will be for their citizens to carry a concealed handgun in public. The NRA lost this round. And you lost. IDIOT.

The argument in the other thread was and remains that the Supreme Court has not made an unambiguous ruling on that issue, Speedy; a fact, btw, which you just reasserted in your brainless post, Speedy. You're an idiot that is lost, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The other thread is irrelevant. This thread counts, hijacker.

We're now moving to Phase II in the Corpy play book -- When challenged respond with lies and insults.

Fact is SCOTUS made a choice NOT to rule on the subject. It didn't rule. You can twist words as much as you want. T?he fact is that Speedy is right and you're flat won't.

And, Mr. Merriam-Webster, the proper way to have written it is "You're an idiot WHO is lost." However, no self respecting copy editor would ever allow such horrible syntax past his desk.

Get a clue, you ignorant bastard.

You wanted this case to go to the Supreme Court. You wanted SCOTUS to rule that gun owners had the same rights to carry guns outside the home as they do inside the home. By deciding not to address the issue, SCOTUS has left the issue the same way it was -- each state determines for itself how difficult it will be for their citizens to carry a concealed handgun in public. The NRA lost this round. And you lost. IDIOT. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You wanted this case to go to the Supreme Court, Speedy. You wanted SCOTUS to rule that gun owners couldn't carry guns outside the home, Speedy. By deciding not to address the issue, Speedy, SCOTUS has left the issue the same way it was -- each state determines for itself how difficult it will be for their citizens to carry a concealed handgun in public. SCOTUS has not made an unambiguous ruling on this issue, Speedy. You're an idiot that is still lost, Speedy.

You wanted this case to go to the Supreme Court, Speedy. You wanted SCOTUS to rule that gun owners couldn't carry guns outside the home, Speedy. By deciding not to address the issue, Speedy, SCOTUS has left the issue the same way it was -- each state determines for itself how difficult it will be for their citizens to carry a concealed handgun in public. SCOTUS has not made an unambiguous ruling on this issue, Speedy. You're an idiot that is still lost, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong as usual. I wanted each state to have the right to decide whether or not they wanted a CHL as a requirement to carry a concealed handgun. That is what is still true. I firmly support people carrying concealed handguns outside the home -- with a CHL. Wyoming for one does not require a CHL to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. I'm fine with that. I may not agree with not requiring a CHL but Wyoming has the right to not require one, just as NJ has the right to establish very strict requirements in order to get a CHL. I won. You wanted the requirement for a CHL to be done away with. You lost.

You continue to be the most consistent loser on this board.

Wrong as usual. I wanted each state to have the right to decide whether or not they wanted a CHL as a requirement to carry a concealed handgun. That is what is still true. I firmly support people carrying concealed handguns outside the home -- with a CHL. Wyoming for one does not require a CHL to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. I'm fine with that. I may not agree with not requiring a CHL but Wyoming has the right to not require one, just as NJ has the right to establish very strict requirements in order to get a CHL. I won. You wanted the requirement for a CHL to be done away with. You lost.

You continue to be the most consistent loser on this board. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Long live the 2nd amendment!




A candidate to represent Georgia in the U.S. Senate has issued a warning to middle-class America about Washington’s plans to control guns.

“They want to know who you are, what you have, and they want to know where you live,” said Derrick E. Grayson, a Republican running to succeed Saxby Chambliss.



His comments appeared on a video that was posted online a few weeks ago but recently has started getting attention.

Grayson said he knows Americans are struggling and hurting.

“Despite all the promises by our elected officials, career politicians, and so-called leaders, many people all across this great nation are finding it more and more difficult to cope with the various challenges brought about by out of touch politicians,” he writes on his campaign website. “The erosion of personal freedom and liberty as a result of federal policy and legislation is alarming.”

But on his “drive time” video, he explains his view of the constitutional guarantee that individuals can keep and bear arms.

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting,” he said. “It is about protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government.

“Make no mistake about it. Gun control is not about crook control. It’s about America control. That’s what they want to do,” he said.

If gun control worked, he suggested, Chicago wouldn’t be a “war zone.”

Connecticut, which recently adopted additional restrictions on long guns and magazines, should do what Colorado voters did – throw out of office some of the politicians who worked to undermine the Second Amendment, he said.

He cited other gun-control advances, including restrictions on veterans with mental health issues and people who are using various medications.

“Kids that are on Ritalin, they’ll be the next in line,” he said.

“The only thing that holds the government back from just going ballistic on us is the Second Amendment,” he said. “When we become disarmed, it’s over. It’s over.

“When they take your guns and disarm you, it’s over, lights out.”

Grayson, a transit authority senior network engineer who calls himself the “minister of truth,” is competing in a race that includes Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston.

WND reported a lawsuit alleges the Obama administration is using mental health issues involving veterans to disarm them. Michael Connelly of the United States Justice Foundation has filed suit on behalf of military veterans who were told they were incompetent and stripped of their right to bear arms.

The federal government already had cast aspersions on military vets when it warned in 2009 that “returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.”

The report, by the Department of Homeland Security, was called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It said Obama’s bureaucrats were “concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”

So when hundreds, perhaps thousands, of veterans began receiving letters like one dispatched from the Portland, Ore., office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, alarm bells went off.

WND reported a veteran in Oregon received a letter warning him that “evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition.”

“We propose to rate you incompetent for VA purposes. This means we must decide if you are able to handle your VA benefit payments. We will base our decision on all the evidence we already have including any other evidence you sent to us.”

Completion of the incompetency determination would mean a “fiduciary” would be appointed to manage the veteran’s payments.

The VA also warned: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.”

Connelly said it’s part of an overall strategy Obama is advancing. He previously issued two executive orders that make it easier for a wide range of officials to call a person unstable and report his name to the FBI’s NICS so he would be banned from having guns.

“If you have ever told your doctor you have been depressed, ever suffered from PTSD after being in an accident or losing a family member, or even in the past taken certain types of medications for things such as ADD you may be denied your Second Amendment rights,” Connelly said

He said the disarming process for members of the military is being accomplished through the VA, where there no longer is due process.

WND also has reported Washington’s decision to ignore state actions in Colorado and Washington where the use of marijuana was legalized under state law, even though it continues to violate federal law.

A gun-rights advocate pointed out that federal gun rules prohibit anyone who uses drugs that are illegal under federal law from possessing a weapon.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/they-want...QRZkdAcOHem.99

Wrong as usual. I wanted each state to have the right to decide whether or not they wanted a CHL as a requirement to carry a concealed handgun. That is what is still true. I firmly support people carrying concealed handguns outside the home -- with a CHL. Wyoming for one does not require a CHL to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. I'm fine with that. I may not agree with not requiring a CHL but Wyoming has the right to not require one, just as NJ has the right to establish very strict requirements in order to get a CHL. I won. You wanted the requirement for a CHL to be done away with. You lost.

You continue to be the most consistent loser on this board. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The argument in the other thread was and remains that the Supreme Court has not made an unambiguous ruling on that issue, Speedy. You're other assertions are ignorant lies and products of your delusional mind, Speedy. You're the benighted idiot that is lost, Speedy.

The argument in the other thread was and remains that the Supreme Court has not made an unambiguous ruling on that issue, Speedy. You're other assertions are ignorant lies and products of your delusional mind, Speedy. You're the benighted idiot that is lost, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You wanted SCOTUS to rule that the requirement for CHLS in any state was unconstitutional. Didn't happen. YOU LOST. Get over it IDIOT.

And IFFY, you completely hijacked the thread with your post.

You wanted SCOTUS to rule that the requirement for CHLS in any state was unconstitutional. Didn't happen. YOU LOST. Get over it IDIOT.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The argument in the other thread was and remains that the Supreme Court has not made an unambiguous ruling on that issue, Speedy, and you cannot back up your ignorant lie with a single citation, Speedy. You're still the benighted idiot that is lost, Speedy.

And IFFY, you completely hijacked the thread with your post.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

A second amendment post ruined your anti-second amendment party? ... OK..What ever.