Just received this from my landlord today

[AndeyHall]

Understood, but some states' landlord-tenant law prohibits telling them how to live. Can't control a lot of things. Putting it in a lease isn't enough. I can't put such a provision in my leases, it's unenforceable.
.
In NY... "A landlord is prohibited from any action intended to force a tenant out of an apartment or to compel a tenant to give up any rights granted the tenant by law." The right to bear arms is granted by law.

Oh lord, way to make the one comment that will bring all the wanna-be constitutional scholars out of the wood works to tell you that the law does not grant us the right to bear arms it only reaffirms it yada yada yada.

 

[whodat2710]

Link Removed

The Second Amendment doesn't give gun owners any rights whatsover with respect to infringement by private people and businesses. Nor does it impose any restrictions or obligations on private people and business as to how they treat people with guns. It only constrains the federal government and (this area of the law is still being developed--slowly--in the courts) state and local governments.

Wrong. It is still being bastardized by state and local legislators, there is no question what it says unless you don't like guns and want to "interpret" it creatively.

 

[whodat2710]

I know the law. You don't.

Humble much? And how in the HELL do you know what I know?

 

[whodat2710]

I know the law. You don't.

Humble much? And how in the HELL do you know what I know?

 

[Oldgrunt]

Humble much? And how in the HELL do you know what I know?

Chief: He has you on that. He is an attorney, former AF JAG officer and well versed in the law. That is why he does not suffer us lightly. But, that is what keeps all this stuff interesting.

 

[Axeanda45]

The Second Amendment doesn't give gun owners any rights whatsover with respect to infringement by private people and businesses. Nor does it impose any restrictions or obligations on private people and business as to how they treat people with guns. It only constrains the federal government and (this area of the law is still being developed--slowly--in the courts) state and local governments.

Natural "law" however, DOES say that our "rights" exist everywhere, all the time, whether or not others attempt to pass "laws" or make "rules" that state otherwise, they STILL ALWAYS EXIST no matter how many people try to say otherwise, no matter how many "rulers" or "lawmakers", "politicians" , or whatever else you want to call them do or say, they can NEVER erase our rights....

 

[whodat2710]

Chief: He has you on that. He is an attorney, former AF JAG officer and well versed in the law. That is why he does not suffer us lightly. But, that is what keeps all this stuff interesting.

I was not questioning whether HE knew the law, just his statement that I don't. He doesn't know me from Adam, and I would THINK an "attorney" would steer away from dumb a$$ generalizations regarding things he has no knowledge of. Nothing said he was a good lawyer...

 

[whodat2710]

I realize that the idiotic mantra, "how can somebody judge me if he 'doesn't even know me'" has crept into contemporary language, and even worse, into thinking (or what passes for thinking these days). The incredible thing is that people act as if that rhetoric means something. How about this revolutionary notion: You can judge how much somebody "you don't even know" knows or doesn't know about something based on what he/she says about it!!!

Then show ANYTHING I have said and where it is legally incorrect.

 

[BluesStringer]

Then show ANYTHING I have said and where it is legally incorrect.

Dude makes (or "made" because I think I recall that he is now retired) his living off of convincing clients that only lawyers are educated enough or smart enough to understand 18th Century plain English about such complicated issues as the definition of words like "shall" or "not" or "infringed," or who is empowered by the Constitution and who is limited by it. Same with the Declaration. It has no bearing on what is legal or not legal for The People to have a say-so about.

His is a living made by mixing his leftist ideology with black-letter-law in a blender and empowering our creation, the government, to enforce whatever jumbled mess against our own interests comes out in the blend.

Fuhgeddabout him. He's what most even moderately adherent-to-the Constitution would call an "enemy." And I can say that based on what he/she says about it!!!

Blues

 

[whodat2710]

Translation: Buy into groupthink or inconsequential adherents will say bad things about you in even worse prose.

Ok mr.ambulance chaser... I'm pretty sure that in law school they don't teach you "everything" you need to know, so where did you learn the rest? Life? Hmmmm.
-
Please define for me the words "shall not infringe" in the context of the 2nd Amendment.
Please define for me the word "pursuit" in the context of the preamble to the Constitution.
-
If you actually were a JAG lawyer, then you served. If you served, supposedly you served honorably. Presuming that you served honorably, then the oath you took meant something to you (unless maybe in lawyer-esque fashion you had your fingers crossed).
-
For me, taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution required of me certain things, among them reading and understanding that document. I got a little pocket copy I keep with me just for reference. I'm also pretty well versed in the UCMJ and can fumble my way through the Manual for Courts Marshal; because you have to know what the rules are so you don't break them, and sometimes have to hold subordinates accountable for not following them. I was also a Federal Law Enforcement officer for 25 years and I know my way around all the USC's that apply to the water, from boating safety and fisheries to living marine resources and environmental protection.
-
Those are only a few examples of "you don't have to be a lawyer to know the law". -
In short, bite me.

 

[BluesStringer]

Translation: Buy into groupthink or inconsequential adherents will say bad things about you in even worse prose.

You're actually right for a change. "We, The People" does express a certain "group-think" mindset, and your "translation" of what I said proves the veracity of....well....what I said.

A "good" lawyer isn't so-easily hoisted by his own retard.....er.....umm.....petard.

Blues