Gun control |
Post Reply | Page <1234 15> |
Author | |||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Very true.
|
|||
Clark Kent
Platinum Member Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I would suggest that technically Dibi is correct, but most of us still colloquially refer to judges as "enforcing" the law... Mostly semantics... |
|||
DBibeau855
Platinum Member IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK Joined: 26 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 11662 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yes technicaly true, they decide sentencing, but this isnt enforcement, it is judgement. Both are judgment, a quote i like is "The judicial branch has neither the power of the sword(enforcement) nor the power of the purse(ability to levy taxes) Their position is merely judgment."
|
|||
Bugg
Member One screw up and all screen names go Joined: 16 February 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 33 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Not technically true. The judicial branch carries out sentencing and reverses decisions; therefore, on a technical standard can be seen as enforcers (or lackthereof) of laws. If the judicial branch sees a law as unconstitutional it can enforce the reversal of it by not sentencing those charged with the law/crime.
|
|||
DBibeau855
Platinum Member IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK Joined: 26 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 11662 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Well, they support mandatory safety training too. At the NRA building in Annondale VA. There is a shooting range, i like it a lot, i go about once a week. You must pass a safety test to go on the range weather you will be shooting or not. |
|||
DBibeau855
Platinum Member IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK Joined: 26 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 11662 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The judicial branch can inforce nothing. |
|||
Clark Kent
Platinum Member Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I am sure our technical discussion of the fundamentals of the British commonlaw legal system is fascinating our readers... :) But you are incorrect. Judges can and do create laws whole cloth. Yes, only in the context of an actual case, but whole cloth nevertheless. Negligence law was not originally based on ANY statute. It was entirely judge-made, from scratch (recently various jurisdictions have enacted legislation to tweak these rules, but the origins are clearly judge made). Court, both of law and of equity, have broad powers to create law. They have to follow statute (unless unconstitutional), but in the absence of statute they can - and do - make up their own laws. |
|||
whoknowswho
Member Joined: 08 September 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
What about the new "sniper rifle" ban that anti-gun lobbyists are trying to get through? It bans "heavy and medium" "sniper" rifles on the basis that they could be used by terrorists. Let me see, what could that include? Obviously, the .50 BMG is a target, but what about that .30-06 in your closet? It has a scope, and is not a .22, so it is a medium sniper rifle. Hurry, take it away!! If you put a scope on your lever action .30-30, guess what? .25-06 varmit rifle? Definately a terrorist weapon. Better take that .222 target rifle away too. Even if they ban .50 guns, that would include blackpowder rifles and several specialty cartridges. They could even stretch that to shotguns if they wanted to. While the NRA may have its faults, I think that it is a much needed organization. Without them, there is no telling what kind of laws would have been passed at the insistence of gun grabbers without our knowledge. They do advocate firearms safety, and that is one of their main points for new members. If you join the NRA, one of the first things they send you is info on training in your area if you want it. Finally, I am not against gun control, but I think what we have in the books now is good and should be enforced much better. |
|||
Bugg
Member One screw up and all screen names go Joined: 16 February 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 33 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Like I said, I hate how liberals (and some conservatives) are complaining that Bush didn't reinstate the assault weapons ban
Well 1) He has no control over it, only congress and 2) If people wanted the weaponsto cause harm to another person during the ban, thye could have still gotten the gun, no stopping them |
|||
|
|||
Zesty
Platinum Member Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out Joined: 05 October 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6050 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I think AdmiralSenn mkaes a good point....as a pro-gun person, you are kinda forced to be "whole-hearted" about it.
Once you ban one type of rifle, then it's another...next thing you know you have to give up any gun that can penetrate a bullet-proof vest! Don't laugh, they've already tried! The AWB just shows that these law-makers have no clue what they're talking about! As long as it looks scary, it's illegal. Who cares about functionality! Anyone familiar with Diane Feinstein? She's some old political hag from Califonia. She is one of the most outspoken people against assault weapons and guns in general, yet she has a concealed carry permit and armed bodyguards! I guess so long as you're rich, you're life is worth protecting with a firearm. I guess even anti-gun politicians aren't so against guns as to pack one themselves.....**edited**ing hypocrits! |
|||
Bugg
Member One screw up and all screen names go Joined: 16 February 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 33 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
True be that, couse only the Leglislative branch can make laws, only the excutative law can veto them and only the judicial branch can enforce them
checks and balances, gotta love 'em |
|||
|
|||
SR_Crewchief
Platinum Member Joined: 12 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2663 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
And that's interpratation of existing law not creating law whole cloth. My point is that no court is empowered to create new law. Yes, Miranda is interpretation, Roe v Wade is interpretation, etc, etc etc. Including the tort citing you made. Without an appeal requiring interpretation there would be no president for the later cases in lower courts to cite. But it's still not new law, it interpretation of how existing law should be enforced and/or excercised. |
|||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Very true. Good point. |
|||
Clark Kent
Platinum Member Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The executive branch does create quasi-law in this manner, but if we are going to be picky these are regulations, not laws. They are just as binding on citizens as laws, though. The executive branch also has the power of the executive order, which theoretically is not law, but certainly carries the force of law. |
|||
Clark Kent
Platinum Member Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I stand corrected. The NRA opposed the Brady Bill primarily (I understand) due to the waiting period, not due to the background check.
The NRA, I believe, advocates VOLUNTARY safety training, not mandatory training. |
|||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
We also have lots of regulatory committees creating laws like the FDA, FCC, and so on.
|
|||
SR_Crewchief
Platinum Member Joined: 12 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2663 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Your quite wrong on these points. The NRA actually advocates a centralized nation database for background checks. Congress dismissed it as being to expensive to implement. The NRA also advocates firearms safety training for everyone. Yes they actively lobby against "Gun Control" measures that are nothing more than thinly vailed attempts to disarm law abiding citizians. And for the record I am not nor have I ever been a member of the NRA. |
|||
Clark Kent
Platinum Member Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Well, yes and no. The Judicial Branch has more power than to simply declare laws unconstitutional. The Judicial Branch can also interpret laws (including the Consitution). And since these interpretations are legally binding on lower courts, the result is judge-made law. There are many areas of law where there is very little legislation, and mostly judge-made law. Torts, for instance. You will have to look hard to find in a statute book the law that you are liable for your own negligence. That is judge-made law. Almost all civil tort suits in this country are founded entirely in judge-made law. Slip and fall? Judge made. Car accidents? Judge made. Then there are the interpretations. Miranda warnings? Judge-made by interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. We have a common law system. We have lots of judge-made law. |
|||
Dune
Platinum Member <placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Even though they may not directly create law, they have been the deciding factor is most of the important law issues of the 20th century. They do make or break the law. Technically, they do create new laws or stipulations for laws. |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 15> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |