Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sadly (not really) that is kind of how our system works. The buck KINDA stops with the USSC doesn't it? They make decisions that I do not like, I may ***** and moan about it, but I still follow it. It is not being a "statist", it is obeying the Constitution that created the system we currently have. There are laws I do not agree with, some I have discretion, however, the vast majority I do not and must follow through with them even if I do not agree.

And so, when some judge decrees (and with the replacement of a Scalia or Thomas or Alito by Pres. Hillary, it's not so far fetched this could come from SCOTUS someday), some law that commands the confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons, capable of firing more than 10 shots, with a detachable magazine is lawful, you'll be there to enforce their constitutional decree? Gotcha.

 

[cobber]

Gay marriage decision =Nazi genocide...sounds about right.

Not Holocaust, but maybe a bit My Lai?

 

[MisterChester]

And so, when some judge decrees (and with the replacement of a Scalia or Thomas or Alito by Pres. Hillary, it's not so far fetched this could come from SCOTUS someday), some law that commands the confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons, capable of firing more than 10 shots, with a detachable magazine is lawful, you'll be there to enforce their constitutional decree? Gotcha.

I doubt this would happen. The 2nd amendment is a right, not an implied right, like gay marriage. There is already precedent that heavily favors the 2nd amendment. Even if your scenario does happen, I would have no choice but to comply and fight the ruling the only way I can, and that's supporting a constitutional amendment going against the ruling. With a republican congress it wouldn't be very difficult to push through a pro-gun amendment, and I can see most states going for it since it only requires a hard number of states regardless of population.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I doubt this would happen. The 2nd amendment is a right, not an implied right, like gay marriage. There is already precedent that heavily favors the 2nd amendment. Even if your scenario does happen, I would have no choice but to comply and fight the ruling the only way I can, and that's supporting a constitutional amendment going against the ruling. With a republican congress it wouldn't be very difficult to push through a pro-gun amendment, and I can see most states going for it since it only requires a hard number of states regardless of population.

Point missed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Quote Originally Posted by GPIA7R View Post
Prepping for his Presidential run

Biden: LGBT Discrimination Is Next Fight - The Daily Beast

Do we know if someone has explained to him what those letters mean?

Let Go Buckshot Through the door?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

......

 

[cobber]

I doubt this would happen. The 2nd amendment is a right, not an implied right, like gay marriage. There is already precedent that heavily favors the 2nd amendment. Even if your scenario does happen, I would have no choice but to comply and fight the ruling the only way I can, and that's supporting a constitutional amendment going against the ruling. With a republican congress it wouldn't be very difficult to push through a pro-gun amendment, and I can see most states going for it since it only requires a hard number of states regardless of population.

I hope they don't pass a law rounding up gun owners and sending them to extermination camps, or mandating that all males over the age of 17 be castrated. That constitutional amendment may take a while, with all the good burghers carrying out their duty, or 'fighting the only way they can'.

You are going to rely on Congress and the States to protect your rights?

By the way, what happens when a right based on feelings and liberty (like same sex marriage) collides with an enumerated right? What if the legal experts at SCOTUS, Inc., declare that the former trumps the latter?

As in, my right to feel safe is more important than your right to play John Wayne with a six-shooter? And I'm sure SCOTUS would still let us shoot at gun ranges. And hunt. With approved calibers, of course.

 

[wagyu52]

Precisely. When the one county clerk I heard of from my home state of Mississippi had an issue with it she did the right thing and resigned her position, so it could be filled by someone who could do their duty. They took an oath of office and have to do their job, (just like the rest of us). The governor in KY has already told them they could be facing penalties, including removal from office or even criminal penalties. Do your job or get out. It ain't rocket surgery.

This county clerk has an agenda, the governor is telling him to follow the law. The county clerk is denying the liberty of a right for gays to be married. Especially as a public servant you have no legal liberty to cherry pick the laws you choose to follow.

BUT, but.... We are already cherry picking the laws we want to follow, people who took an oath to uphold the law are currently looking the other way to advance their agenda.
What about the Federal laws being broken in Colorodo, or Washington over pot, or the sanctuary cities refusing to uphold immigration laws. How is this any different?
I don't want to get in to the argument if these things should be legal or not, that's not the point. Fedral law is being broken and if the DOJ, FBI, ICE or any other federal, state and local agency doesn't want to enforce the law, then they should be fired the same as these clerks. Otherwise these clerks should be left to do as they please.

 

[Denny347]

And so, when some judge decrees (and with the replacement of a Scalia or Thomas or Alito by Pres. Hillary, it's not so far fetched this could come from SCOTUS someday), some law that commands the confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons, capable of firing more than 10 shots, with a detachable magazine is lawful, you'll be there to enforce their constitutional decree? Gotcha.

Nice strawman. Are you suggesting that we not follow the law as laid out by the USSC? Quite frankly, I have no willingness to brush them aside and act as if their rulings are invalid. I could go to jail or the very least, lose everything I own in doing so...it's kinda my job. I love our system, it is flawed but I love it none the less. We are talking about 2 adults marring each other and NOT total firearms confiscation. Can anyone NOT see the difference?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nice strawman. Are you suggesting that we not follow the law as laid out by the USSC? Quite frankly, I have no willingness to brush them aside and act as if their rulings are invalid. I could go to jail or the very least, lose everything I own in doing so...it's kinda my job. I love our system, it is flawed but I love it none the less. We are talking about 2 adults marring each other and NOT total firearms confiscation. Can anyone NOT see the difference?

No strawman at all; but an example to prove a point...And with the laws we've seen passed in NY and CT, not so far fetched as Hoosiers like to imagine should the balance in the court shift a bit more. So no ruling they could pass would cause you to be disobedient (civilly, of cours). Interesting.

 

[Expat]

I will not comply.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I will not comply.

Scofflaw!

 

[foszoe]

Can we redefine monogamous to be gender inclusive so I can have one spouse of each gender and double down on my tax deduction?

 

[gstanley102]

Can we redefine monogamous to be gender inclusive so I can have one spouse of each gender and double down on my tax deduction?

You just hit the nail on the head!!!

Give the man a cupie doll!

 

[Expat]

Scofflaw!

i hate it, but I guess I will be.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

i hate it, but I guess I will be.

 

[jamil]

No strawman at all; but an example to prove a point...And with the laws we've seen passed in NY and CT, not so far fetched as Hoosiers like to imagine should the balance in the court shift a bit more. So no ruling they could pass would cause you to be disobedient (civilly, of cours). Interesting.

Honestly, if we're going to use this as an analog to the clerk refusing to do perform his duties you certainly wouldn't expect a police officer to keep his job.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Honestly, if we're going to use this as an analog to the clerk refusing to do perform his duties you certainly wouldn't expect a police officer to keep his job.

Anybody engaging in civil disobedience should expect to fact the consequences. It would never be an effective tool if the price for standing for what you believe in was so low.

 

[Denny347]

No strawman at all; but an example to prove a point...And with the laws we've seen passed in NY and CT, not so far fetched as Hoosiers like to imagine should the balance in the court shift a bit more. So no ruling they could pass would cause you to be disobedient (civilly, of cours). Interesting.

Maybe, but that is a "what if." I live in Indiana , a State with very friendly gun laws and the possibility of the USSC deciding that I must take all your guns is remote at best. The Indiana Supreme Court has traditionally been more restrictive of police actions than the USSC and I do not see that changing anytime soon, they have more affect on Indiana than the USSC does. So who decides if the USSC is right or wrong? As a keeper of the law, it will be a VERY high bar for me to decide to "disobey the court" and risk my job in doing so. Letting gays marry sure as hell ain't one of them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maybe, but that is a "what if." I live in Indiana , a State with very friendly gun laws and the possibility of the USSC deciding that I must take all your guns is remote at best. The Indiana Supreme Court has traditionally been more restrictive of police actions than the USSC and I do not see that changing anytime soon, they have more affect on Indiana than the USSC does. So who decides if the USSC is right or wrong? As a keeper of the law, it will be a VERY high bar for me to decide to "disobey the court" and risk my job in doing so. Letting gays marry sure as hell ain't one of them.

I'm glad the homosexuals will be safe. I'm a little concerned about some court clerk or cake baker though...I hope Indiana never passes a law(s) that criminalizes failure to participate in gay marriage like other states have or creates a protective classification for them. They may well find themselves on the receiving end of you protecting your pension.