Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[KS1956]

The student body has arrived.

I see no need to debate this further. Obviously, you have made up your mind. I've heard your polemics in the past. I also thank you not to tell me what I am trying to debate. I know what I am debating and do not need your histrionics.

Marbury speaks for itself; your ire notwithstanding.

 

[88GT]

Read Marbury v Madison. It has been in operation since 1803.

Judicial review is just another way of arguing "because it's the law." If you have nothing else to justify the existence of a law other than its existence, then you have no justification, and it probably shouldn't be a law.

Parsing the law to fit your view is not very helpful and not consistent with the way we have operated for over 200 years. If you deny Marbury v. you deny the Heller decision and all others, along with the authority of the courts. I'm sure you didn't intend that.

I didn't intend to question judicial review. It's not an issue that is pertinent to my point. (Though in point of fact, I do question a power/authority granted to the courts by the courts, particularly since no such authority was expressly enumerated in the Constitution. But that is a topic for a different discussion.) You have offered no justification for the existence of a law except for the existence of a law. To which I argue that that is no justification at all. Exhibit A: slavery. It was once legal to own and traffic in humans. Would you justify the law's existence by arguing that is was the law of the land and leave it at that? Or would you argue that it was immoral/moral, right/wrong, just/unjust on some other grounds? Your argument only serves to defend the position that laws define the legality of behavior, not the scope of our rights.

Weak argument? No. It is the only argument necessary on this point.

So you do think that any law is acceptable just because it's the law? I just want to be clear on this. You'd be fine if tomorrow Congress re-institutes slavery and it clears the judicial review process all the way through SCOTUS?

And do yourself a favor, pejorative adjectives don't serve to re-inforce your arguments.

Meh. No worse than your implied ad hom insult that other members were lacking in the knowledge department when it came to case law and history. If you cannot defend a law with anything better than "it's the law of the land," you ARE intellectually lazy. Whether or not the statist tendencies exist will remain to be seen. But not once has a defender of liberty ever used the existence of a law as the standard by which to judge the merits of the law. The statist, on the other hand, have. You be the judge. But based on all 5 (at the time of the writing of this post) of your posts, I'm guessing there's a statist streak in there somewhere.

 

[actaeon277]

Read Marbury v Madison. It has been in operation since 1803.

Parsing the law to fit your view is not very helpful and not consistent with the way we have operated for over 200 years. If you deny Marbury v. you deny the Heller decision and all others, along with the authority of the courts. I'm sure you didn't intend that.

Weak argument? No. It is the only argument necessary on this point. And do yourself a favor, pejorative adjectives don't serve to re-inforce your arguments.

While we're throwing around decisions, how about
Compelling governmental interest legal definition of Compelling governmental interest. Compelling governmental interest synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.


So, where is the compelling interest. Once again. Indiana has less of a problem than the states that have stricter requirements.

 

[88GT]

The student body has arrived.

I see no need to debate this further. Obviously, you have made up your mind. I've heard your polemics in the past. I also thank you not to tell me what I am trying to debate. I know what I am debating and do not need your histrionics.

Marbury speaks for itself; your ire notwithstanding.

Is it your argument that because a group of 9 individuals says that a law is not in violation of the Constitution that in fact that law is not in violation of the Constitution?

 

[SteveM4A1]

So you come here for a debate, and when your argument isn't logical or even actually clear, you see no reason to debate further? I actually don't know what you were trying to argue with your posts

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;wvJiYrRcfQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo[/video]

 

[88GT]

So you come here for a debate, and when your argument isn't logical or even actually clear, you see no reason to debate further? I actually don't know what you were trying to argue with your posts

I'm hoping she'll answer some of my questions so that this becomes clear. There's a possibility we're debating the issue in circles here, but based on the totality of the post content, I don't think I'm reading her wrong. I think she really believes that if SCOTUS says a law is not contradictory to the Constitution that said law is not contradictory to the Constitution. In short: it would seem that her argument is that constitutionality is not defined by the words in the document itself (or even the intent of its authors) but by the decisions of a handful of unelected people with no accountability to remaining true to the words of the document or intent of its authors. Even shorter: slavery can become legal again. At least that's how I am receiving her argument.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I think KS is a she (Katrina is the name in the profile). But yea, I am having difficulty following her logic. Hopefully she comes back to debate.

 

[88GT]

I think KS is a she (Katrina is the name in the profile). But yea, I am having difficulty following her logic. Hopefully she comes back to debate.

I shall change my pronouns.

 

[actaeon277]

The student body has arrived.

I see no need to debate this further. Obviously, you have made up your mind. I've heard your polemics in the past. I also thank you not to tell me what I am trying to debate. I know what I am debating and do not need your histrionics.

Marbury speaks for itself; your ire notwithstanding.

I'm so glad that you do not have that problem and are keeping your own mind open.

 

[KS1956]

Judicial review is just another way of arguing "because it's the law." If you have nothing else to justify the existence of a law other than its existence, then you have no justification, and it probably shouldn't be a law.


I didn't intend to question judicial review. It's not an issue that is pertinent to my point. (Though in point of fact, I do question a power/authority granted to the courts by the courts, particularly since no such authority was expressly enumerated in the Constitution. But that is a topic for a different discussion.) You have offered no justification for the existence of a law except for the existence of a law. To which I argue that that is no justification at all. Exhibit A: slavery. It was once legal to own and traffic in humans. Would you justify the law's existence by arguing that is was the law of the land and leave it at that? Or would you argue that it was immoral/moral, right/wrong, just/unjust on some other grounds? Your argument only serves to defend the position that laws define the legality of behavior, not the scope of our rights.


So you do think that any law is acceptable just because it's the law? I just want to be clear on this. You'd be fine if tomorrow Congress re-institutes slavery and it clears the judicial review process all the way through SCOTUS?

Is this really the place to discuss the authority of SCOTUS? It seems to expand this topic beyond it's intent. However, Article III addresses the Court's authority

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Has there been bad legislation? Yes
Has SCOTUS made bad decisions? Yes

However, SCOTUS can be overruled by new decisions (Dred Scott by the 13th and 14th Amendments, Plessy v. Ferguson by Brown v. Board of Education, for example). To throw "slavery" as your foil is a bit limp.

If you are using "statism" as opposed to anarchy, then yes, I am a statist. I believe we are a society based on law, for otherwise the will of the strong would always triumph the will of the people.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Read Marbury v Madison. It has been in operation since 1803.

Parsing the law to fit your view is not very helpful and not consistent with the way we have operated for over 200 years. If you deny Marbury v. you deny the Heller decision and all others, along with the authority of the courts. I'm sure you didn't intend that.

Weak argument? No. It is the only argument necessary on this point. And do yourself a favor, pejorative adjectives don't serve to re-inforce your arguments.

I'm curious what pejorative adjectives you're referencing here, KS. Please elaborate.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Is this really the place to discuss the authority of SCOTUS? It seems to expand this topic beyond it's intent. However, Article III addresses the Court's authority



Has there been bad legislation? Yes
Has SCOTUS made bad decisions? Yes

However, SCOTUS can be overruled by new decisions (Dred Scott by the 13th and 14th Amendments, Plessy v. Ferguson by Brown v. Board of Education, for example). To throw "slavery" as your foil is a bit limp.

If you are using "statism" as opposed to anarchy, then yes, I am a statist. I believe we are a society based on law, for otherwise the will of the strong would always triumph the will of the people.

Hang on. Are you saying that there are only the two extremes, statism and anarchy? By that measure, most of us would be statists, since most of us believe that some government is tolerable and maybe even desirable. I suggest that there are many places along that continuum, however, and where you place yourself would be germane. A great word I read a while back was "minarchist", meaning one who believes in minimal government. This is where I'd place myself. I want my government small. I want it ineffective. I want it contentious. At the same time, I want it to protect individual liberties: Those who would trample upon those liberties, those infringements of life, liberty, and/or property, I want apprehended and punished, whether by retributive payment of damages done such as is necessary to make the damaged party whole again, or by some other means if the former is not possible. I want my government to address national security in the form of having a means to inform the citizenry that a threat exists and that they are needed, such that that citizenry will take arms and defend itself (I respect those who serve with honor and/or distinction, but like our Founders, I distrust a standing military, not because of its rank-and-file members but because of those leading them.) These were precepts our Founders championed. I believe they are precepts we should all revere.

While 88GT is quite capable of defending her own post, I will add that IMHO, I think what she was doing was saying that your claim of SCOTUS being the be-all and end-all of what is and is not Constitutional is spurious. The 1A specifies that the freedom of the press may not be abridged, yet certain magazines have been defined as not qualified for that protection because they "appeal to the prurient interest". No such disclaimer nor exception appears in the 1A, and the 9A specifies that gov't has no powers other than those the Constitution itself grants them. As such, there is no place from which that authority can devolve, thus that exception should be considered null and void.

So it goes with gun laws. the 2A is specific that there shall be no gun laws. The 9A locks that down and clarifies that that power is not granted. We've gotten to where we expect to have to have a license. We rail that others' rights are not rights, but subject to review and restriction despite no harm befalling another. We agree with bans on this item or that barrel or the other ammo... Those 27 words are what is and is not Constitutional w/r/t arms including firearms.
"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."

It doesn't get much more clear than that, IMHO, no matter what any SCOTUS Justice said.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SaintsNSinners]

​BIG Words!!!!!!!! I dont know what we are talking about....

 

[dmarsh8]

​BIG Words!!!!!!!! I dont know what we are talking about....

 

[4sarge]

Regulation is CONTROL.
Just another Democrat wanting to Regulate the Right to Bear Arms.
NOT Needed, CONTACT your State Reps

 

[Paul30]

I can tell you many states that don't honor IN LTCH is due to lack of training requirements. That said, if someone wants to carry in those states, don't try to screw over your home state by adding restrictions, get a non resident CCW from somewhere they honor and be done with it. I lived in Oklahoma before they passed the CCW license and was in contact with many who got it passed. One of the things they were worried about was it not getting passed at all due to fear of all the western gun fights that were going to occur according to all the anti gunners. To make sure they were able to get it passed, they required a 6 hour course. It was mostly classroom training on when you are authorized to use deadly force, and the legalities that go along with it. We had to load a gun, and safely handle it while shooting at a man sized target 7 yards away, you were not scored or required to hit it once, just do it safely. When we got our CCW license we honored the neighboring state of TX, but they did not honor ours because TX required 8 hours of training, and Oklahoma only required 6 hours. Time passed, they finally honored it. Oklahoma also did not honor the IN license. I spoke with one of the guys who were responsible for getting it passed and asked if he would put something in the law to honor IN, even though we did not require training. They changed the law to read they would reciprocate with any state that honored their license the next time they made a change to it. I know some states still feel they do not want to honor our license due to no training, but the solution is not to destroy something that is correct in our home state to please everyone else. Fight this proposed bill, get a non resident license elsewhere, it's the right thing to do, and probably will cost much less too in the long run.

 

[bingley]

I hear that the bill includes mandatory weekly range time, paid for by the employer. What a horrifying thought!

 

[Expat]

I would argue the point, but I am so smart that the rest of you would be unable to comprehend what I said...

 

[88GT]

Is this really the place to discuss the authority of SCOTUS? It seems to expand this topic beyond it's intent. However, Article III addresses the Court's authority

Yes, General Politics is the place on INGO to discuss these issues. No, this thread's original scope wasn't intended to discuss judicial review. Of course, I said as much in the very post you quoted, so the motive for this rebuttal seems questionable.

Has there been bad legislation? Yes
Has SCOTUS made bad decisions? Yes

If that is all you are taking from this discussion, you are missing the point. I have posed several direct questions to you in my other posts. Will you answer those?

However, SCOTUS can be overruled by new decisions (Dred Scott by the 13th and 14th Amendments, Plessy v. Ferguson by Brown v. Board of Education, for example). To throw "slavery" as your foil is a bit limp.

Slavery is a perfect example of highlighting the logical fallacy of your argument. If you want to justify a law by saying that it's the law, then let's pick any law and justify it the same way. Your standard, to remain logically valid, will require ALL laws to be defensible by that standard, without regard to their content/consequences. So, once again I ask: if Congress legalizes slavery tomorrow and SCOTUS upholds it, is it still your position that as the "law of the land" it is constitutional? If you don't like slavery because, then let's use something a little more gentle. If tomorrow Congress passes a law prohibiting the free practice of religion but for one (which one matters not), and SCOTUS upholds it, is it still your position that as the "law of the land," it is constitutional?

If you are using "statism" as opposed to anarchy, then yes, I am a statist. I believe we are a society based on law, for otherwise the will of the strong would always triumph the will of the people.

BoR already addressed the false dichotomy you have presented, but for the sake of discussion, let me define my use of the word: a statist is one who believes in the sovereignty of the state, not the individual; who believes that laws exist to control people for the benefit of the state; who believes that whatever the states says, so it is. A statist believes men need to be ruled by other men. And he generally perceives himself to be the one in the position of ruler on the mistaken notion that his views of the world are superior to the views of those he wishes to rule. He believes in the inherent evilness of man. He believes that by controlling his fellow man, he can eliminate all the bad things in society. He is unfamiliar with, or chooses to ignore, human nature. And he routinely refers to the state as "society." Free individual men do not exist in the statist's society. They are cogs in the wheel and exist solely for the collective, irrespective of their personal interests, desires, needs, goals, beliefs.

Does that describe you?