[jigs-n-fixture]

Well said.

A frequently problem with attempting to have an intelligent discourse on a forum is that there are a few floating around who lack the intelligence to actually contribute to the conversation.

[JimRau]

Originally Posted by blucoondawg

Well DUDE, I am the OP of this thread and I started it to point out a particular case which is going to go in front of the Supreme Court, the fact that you obviously haven't even read the original post makes your ranting even more confusing? We all agree we don't need any more laws infringing on 2A, and as I have been trying to point out the case in which this thread is meant to discuss shouldn't have the weight to infringe on anyones rights, obviously there are other major issues within this gov't that many have issues with, this thread had nothing to do with any of that, so forgive me if it's kinda hard to follow your point. It is much easier to follow people if they make their rants in threads to which they apply.

We have ranches for YOU 'dudes' where I come from!
And all my comments were directly related to your first post, Dudette!

[blucoondawg]

Then how is it that you have no idea what the thread is about? If you have been following it from the beginning then you should know what it is about. As far as your above post goes, all I have to say to that is if you cannot provide intelligent input into the coversation go rant and make childish insults on a different thread, maybe find a thread that applies. Good day.

[JimRau]

Originally Posted by blucoondawg

Then how is it that you have no idea what the thread is about? If you have been following it from the beginning then you should know what it is about. As far as your above post goes, all I have to say to that is if you cannot provide intelligent input into the coversation go rant and make childish insults on a different thread, maybe find a thread that applies. Good day.

You need to go back and read the thread before you criticize anyone. By the way there is more than one case discussed in this thread.
If this thread does not apply to our RTKABA's I stand corrected!!!

[blucoondawg]

I have read the thread I started it and have followed it throughout, it was started to talk about the upcoming decision coming from the Supreme Court which is brought on my some conflicting decisions made by the lower courts. That is the job of the Court is it not? You seem to be arguing that it is not the Court's job to rule on Constitutional Law, which I believe is their 1 and only job. This court case was not brought on by the anti gunners as a means to infringe upon anyones right to do anything, it is about whether Colorado has the right to deny a permit to an out of state resident. That resident is trying to use the 2A to his favor by stating that carry is a right granted by the Constitution based on the Court in Illinois finding their carry ban unconstitutional.

[JimRau]

Originally Posted by blucoondawg

I have read the thread I started it and have followed it throughout, it was started to talk about the upcoming decision coming from the Supreme Court which is brought on my some conflicting decisions made by the lower courts. That is the job of the Court is it not? You seem to be arguing that it is not the Court's job to rule on Constitutional Law, which I believe is their 1 and only job. This court case was not brought on by the anti gunners as a means to infringe upon anyones right to do anything, it is about whether Colorado has the right to deny a permit to an out of state resident. That resident is trying to use the 2A to his favor by stating that carry is a right granted by the Constitution based on the Court in Illinois finding their carry ban unconstitutional.

You are correct about the courts 'job'! It is the governments 'job' to manage this country in a fair way according to the Constitution also.
There are three distinct and separate branches to the government which were established to have a checks and balance 'system' so one branch does not over step it's authority and/or does not disregard the Constitution.
Here in lies the problem!!!!!
ALL three branches of government are no longer fulfilling this goal. They are all guilty of a gross disregard of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
Many here, and through out this country, are to blind to see this or are afraid to admit it so they continue to allow their rights to be eroded everyday at all levels of government and consider it status quo.
Well I have had enough and it upsets some who don't believe the government is 'broken', but it is and if you look at history you will see it is dysfunctional and where we are headed IF we don't draw a line in the sand NOW!!!

[BigByrd47119]

Does 2A trump 10A, and if not, then there is no basis for reciprocity that I can see.

It will be very interesting if the court expands on its logic. If it upholds the right of Colorado to deny this gentlemen a CPL it had damned well better be a 10A explenation!

[Jpyle]

Originally Posted by BigByrd47119

Does 2A trump 10A, and if not, then there is no basis for reciprocity that I can see.

It will be very interesting if the court expands on its logic. If it upholds the right of Colorado to deny this gentlemen a CPL it had damned well better be a 10A explenation!

If SCOTUS incorporates the 2A it does but I doubt the Court will deny states the ability to regulate who can conceal carry. Only a federal permit or universal reciprocity can do that.

[BigByrd47119]

Originally Posted by Jpyle

If SCOTUS incorporates the 2A it does but I doubt the Court will deny states the ability to regulate who can conceal carry. Only a federal permit or universal reciprocity can do that.

Yep.

This is actually one of the reasons Im against the federal national receprocity law that was passed a while ago. I mean, you still ha e to follow THAT states law.

My theory on what will happen: court will side with Colorado.

Why?

Because even national receprocity says you must abide by the state(s) which you will visit and their gun laws. If Colorado has a law forbidding CPL's to non residents, then thats that states law.

Now, thats not to say I agree with it, but thata a whole different thing.

[Jpyle]

Originally Posted by BigByrd47119

Yep.

This is actually one of the reasons Im against the federal national receprocity law that was passed a while ago. I mean, you still ha e to follow THAT states law.

My theory on what will happen: court will side with Colorado.

Why?

Because even national receprocity says you must abide by the state(s) which you will visit and their gun laws. If Colorado has a law forbidding CPL's to non residents, then thats that states law.

Now, thats not to say I agree with it, but thata a whole different thing.

Agreed. States can't be compelled to do anything by the Feds and I like it that way.