U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,015 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Well he was in Florida so...
my bad and you are right.

Unfortunately, Florida doesn't seem to have much in the way of laws regarding criminal threats, there was legislation in 2016 to beef up the existing law but it didn't pass. It appears that current FL law regarding these threats is contained in a few different sections:

790.164 False reports concerning planting a bomb, explosive, or weapon of mass destruction in, or committing arson against, state-owned property, or concerning the use of firearms in a violent manner; penalty; reward.
790.162 Threat to throw or discharge destructive device.
790.163 False report of bomb, deadly explosive, or weapon of mass destruction, or use of firearms in violent manner
836.10 Written threats to kill or do bodily injury.
1006.07 (b) Making a threat or false report, as defined by ss. 790.162 and 790.163, respectively, involving school or school personnelís property, school transportation, or a school-sponsored activity
(m) Notice that any student who is determined to have made a threat or false report, as defined by ss. 790.162 and 790.163, respectively, involving school or school personnelís property, school transportation, or a school sponsored activity will be expelled

http://laws.flrules.org/2016/156

Too bad they decided not to pass the legislation that was proposed because that ^ is way too vague to use for arresting someone who says what Cruz did
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,015 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
And confiscation of guns WITH due process (go to a judge, get a warrant to confiscate Clyde's guns, then go to Clyde's house and take his guns) is just as intrusive.

But at least it's legal, since as we all know the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by due process of law".

Well, my copy doesn't say that. But mine must be defective or out of date, it's missing those last six words. But I'm sure they're there in modern copies of the Constitution, since every liberal acts as though they are, and some even say explicitly that they're in there.

I mean, if they weren't, then even a judge could not legally issue a warrant to take somebody's guns away.

Just as a judge cannot legally issue a warrant to kidnap a black man off the streets, put him in chains, and force him to work on your farm. The 13th amendment prohibits that.

The 13th does have a phrase saying " except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". But a warrant from a judge is not "duly convicted", of course.

So I'm sure the 2nd amendment similarly has the phrase, "except by due process of law". Otherwise the judge would be flagrantly violating the law by granting such a warrant, just as he'd be violating the law by issuing a warrant to kidnap a black man and force him into slavery.

And a judge (or a cop) would never violate the Constitution. Would he?
Rather than attempt to interpret the constitution, show us the successful court challenges to GVRO laws in the 5 states that have them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Washington, but California born and raised
48 posts, read 22,876 times
Reputation: 64
Leftists and anti-White politicians will soon be calling for the confiscation of White people's firearms. Mark my words. They've already linked the Florida shooter to White Supremacy and Neo Nazis. This is all orchestrated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,058 posts, read 949,512 times
Reputation: 1445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
I totally agree. But due process can occur after the taking. I've posted about how it works multiple times.
The issue is, that isn't what due process means and that isnt how logic works. That would be akin to, but much worse than taking something from a another person's house without permission and telling them you will explain why... eventually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,659 posts, read 9,038,488 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
And confiscation of guns WITH due process (go to a judge, get a warrant to confiscate Clyde's guns, then go to Clyde's house and take his guns) is just as intrusive.

But at least it's legal, since as we all know the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by due process of law".

Well, my copy doesn't say that. But mine must be defective or out of date, it's missing those last six words. But I'm sure they're there in modern copies of the Constitution, since every liberal acts as though they are, and some even say explicitly that they're in there.

I mean, if they weren't, then even a judge could not legally issue a warrant to take somebody's guns away.

Just as a judge cannot legally issue a warrant to kidnap a black man off the streets, put him in chains, and force him to work on your farm. The 13th amendment prohibits that.

The 13th does have a phrase saying " except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". But a warrant from a judge is not "duly convicted", of course.

So I'm sure the 2nd amendment similarly has the phrase, "except by due process of law". Otherwise the judge would be flagrantly violating the law by granting such a warrant, just as he'd be violating the law by issuing a warrant to kidnap a black man and force him into slavery.

And a judge (or a cop) would never violate the Constitution. Would he?
Try the 5th.

Or here you go....

Quote:
due process of law
n. a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite, the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. The universal guarantee of due process is in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides "No person shallÖbe deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and is applied to all states by the 14th Amendment. From this basic principle flows many legal decisions determining both procedural and substantive rights.
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595

I strongly believe in the 2nd and I strongly believe in due process. They are not mutually exclusive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:25 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,063 posts, read 1,385,598 times
Reputation: 3640
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Rather than attempt to interpret the constitution, show us
Hmm, sounds like I touched a nerve here.

So anyone who tried to go by what the Constitution plainly says, must immediately be ordered not to?

I don't blame the liberals for running scared of the Constitution. It bans most of their big-govt agenda. All they can do is try to say "You interpreted it wrong"... even when you interpreted it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,015 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22101
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Try the 5th. Or here you go....
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595
I strongly believe in the 2nd and I strongly believe in due process. They are not mutually exclusive.
Here's an article for you written by a conservative, David French in support of GVRO's

"The GVRO is consistent with and recognizes both the inherent right of self-defense and the inherent right of due process. It is not collective punishment. It is precisely targeted."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,306 posts, read 15,772,260 times
Reputation: 9861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
Label groups of people as you wish, it doesn't change the fact that many believe a federal government with less control over citizens, not more, is the most effective route to ensuring freedoms.
Wasn't a label issue, just an issue of what I heard of late on here...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,659 posts, read 9,038,488 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Here's an article for you written by a conservative, David French in support of GVRO's

"The GVRO is consistent with and recognizes both the inherent right of self-defense and the inherent right of due process. It is not collective punishment. It is precisely targeted."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/
I would have to look into this law with greater detail but I haven't. Like I said before, on its face, it doesn't appear to violate due process but again, my previous statements were pointing out the lack of due process in the other poster's idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,015 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Hmm, sounds like I touched a nerve here.
Didn't touch my nerve, I just find it boring when people try to interpret the constitution in bizarre ways that make it fit their agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top