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.
My husband and I have guns, we are not 'anti-gun' but what I am opposed to is the nonsense that takes place at the Reno gun shows where the majority of sellers are not licensed but are moving more guns than licensed dealers are. You should go there sometime and see the characters buying guns from the sellers without a license, hell they even ask the seller if they do background checks and if the answer is 'yes' they move on to the next table. That is wrong and needs to stop, it's too bad that the Republicans in Congress are so afraid of the NRA that they won't even consider legislation that would stop this, but that's not a reason to do nothing about it. It does NOT keep you from owning a gun, it does not make it harder for you to buy a gun, it does not restrict you from selling a gun to your neighbor- but it might keep a guy with prison tats from walking into the Reno gun show and walking out with a legally purchased arsenal.
Ive been going to the Big Reno Gun Show of the West for years as well as other gun shows since the early 80's.
None of that crap your trying to peddle about occurs.
What does happen are LEGAL person to person sales as is LEGAL in Nevada and use to be legal in Kommieforina without a back ground check until 1992.
Your barking up the wrong tree if you think you can school me as I've been active in the RKBA politcal and legal movement since 1978 when I got my first NRA membership.
If you can find illegal crap going on at gun shows then go film it and get back to us.
Since the time of the founding of our country private party sales of firearm has occurred LEGALLY with getting the OK from Big Brother.
I also doubt very seriously you own any guns.
Last edited by CaseyB; 01-06-2016 at 04:57 AM..
Reason: rude
Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases.
I disagree with your use of the word Propaganda. Many were pamphlets and speeches intended o state the case for Ratification, etc., but I wouldn't use the term propaganda, but in either case, whatever characterization you wish to use, Intent is Intent.
I am not in the least interested in Court Decisions, for they are, in the main, are incremental perversions of the actual underlying law.
I am reminded of the "experiment" everyone has done in school at one time or another. Everyone sits in a circle in the gym, and one person is given a short message verbally. That message is passed from person, to person, to person, and each time it loses a little meaning or gains meaning not in the original.
Court decisions are the same way. Incremental deviations from the expressed intent of the crafters of the original language.
I take my counsel from the Founders, not some jack-leg attorney in black robes, appointed for life with no accountability who has been brainwashed into thinking that the decision of the court before him is more important than the base "legislation". This is how we have gone from Trying Cases to Legislating from the Bench.
I speak always in reference to the original law, its crafters and their intent. All else, IMHO, is a nullity.
The problem is that law schools teach case law instead of the meaning of the actual laws as written. Law and judgements should be based on the laws, not on the opinion from another case.
The problem is that law schools teach case law instead of the meaning of the actual laws as written. Law and judgements should be based on the laws, not on the opinion from another case.
The opinions usually contain some sort of analytical reasoning that supplies a precedential value to future litigation. It is a virtue of our system that we are able to see consistent rulings, it is efficient which is beneficial to both litigants.
Law Schools teach both, the case law method is here is an issue, here is the black letter law of that issue and here is how the court came to a conclusion. Usually when a case is litigated there is some dispute on how that law should be applied, judges aren't just making things up. In any string of words in the english language you have some sort of ambiguity and that's where the case law method comes into play. The other problem is that there isn't a codified statute on every single issue that could arise.
There is a theory known as legal realism, that is where we view case law not as some objective body of law, but as a way to predict how a judge is going to rule. Without precedential values, could you imagine how inconsistent rulings would be?
Here is a basic case law, how can we determine Jurisdiction over a case, that is which court is allowed to hear a case? There is no statute on point in Personal Jurisdiction and there are vague ones relating to federal jurisdiction. There are instead cases that fill the gaps.
Or in contracts, the UCC governs specific transactions, common law governs the rest, i.e. personal services and the like.
The problem is that law schools teach case law instead of the meaning of the actual laws as written. Law and judgements should be based on the laws, not on the opinion from another case.
That I what I have been trying to explain to no avail. It goes over their heads like a XR71 at 50K Feet. It is usurpation of power from the crafters of the law that has become intolerable and MUST be corrected.
That I what I have been trying to explain to no avail. It goes over their heads like a XR71 at 50K Feet. It is usurpation of power from the crafters of the law that has become intolerable and MUST be corrected.
You'll have to excuse people from taking your advice, they're just following an international legal system that has existed before the US was even thought up.
Here's a game for you to help you understand why case law exists.
X sues Y for a car accident that took place in Los Angeles, California. Y is a resident of Oregon and had never been to California prior X is a resident of Washington and wants to sue Y in Washington in order to save money and expense. Y owns a business that has two locations out of 100 in Washington. Can X sue Y in Washington? Can X sue Y in a Washington Federal District Court in Washington? Which states have personal jurisdiction over this matter? Which Federal District Court can exercise Jurisdiction over this matter most easily?
How can you find the answer to this question by only using statutes?
This matters, when you sue you have to figure where you can sue and then the advantages/disadvantages of doing so, i.e. local biases, Conservative v. Liberal juries etc.
Hint: You have to use case law.
The overarching point being that case law is used to fill gaps for complicated issues that statutes cannot fill. It is precedential so that we have consistency.
Spoiler
The answers are no to Washington, the easiest Federal Court being the Central District of California, Oregon would also have Jurisdiction over Y, but California would have a greater interest. There are means of getting to Federal Court in Washington, also identified via case law after the case is brought in California, but they are less likely to be successful
Rights and amendments can be modified, added or deleted by the will of the people and politicians.
Right, by 2/3rd of Congress and 3/4ths the states. Not an easy task
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.
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.
