Seattle peeps - get your CCP before its too late

[Spats]

The Letterman case proves my point. The order was indeed supported by a factual record. Letterman went into court, demonstrated that the factual record (a crazy fucker's testimony) was purely fantastical, and moved for the restraining order to be promptly overturned.

No, the Letterman case proves MY point and disproves yours.

In the Letterman case, the restraining order was IN FORCE the moment it was signed by the judge. And, pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act, passed in 1994, "The Full Faith and Credit provision of VAWA, 18 U.S.C. 2265, requires all state and tribal courts to enforce valid civil and criminal protection orders issued by foreign jurisdictions as though they had been issued by the non-issuing, enforcing state or tribal court." http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents.../chapter6.html

This is the definition of "guilty until proven innocent": Letterman was subject to the terms of the New Mexico order no matter where he was at the time, based entirely on the word of an insane person in New Mexico. There was no due process, no ability to present his side of the case, no ability to question the accuser, etc.

That is NOT DUE PROCESS. The fact that Letterman was able to successfully APPEAL the restraining order -- after the fact -- does not mean that he was never subject to its provisions. Nor does it mean that it was magically never granted.

Meanwhile, those people who aren't David Letterman ($millions, legal staff on retainer) have to deal with the consequences: being unable to live in their own house, see their own children, or own firearms, just for starters. The fact that these rights are sometimes restored does not remove the FACT that they were taken away for a period of time -- a punishment meted out without due process.

Game, set, match.



[EDIT to add: the Clinton crime bill that removes the right to own firearms for anyone who has ever been subject to a restraining order has some conditions...one of them being that the subject of the order must have been served notice and given opportunity to respond. So Letterman probably didn't lose his right to own guns unless he was served in New York.

However, anyone without the cash to keep lawyers on retainer in a state all the way across the country would have to fly to the hearing and represent themselves pro se...and his or her right to own guns could be forever taken away by a judge's whim, without a jury trial or any of the constraints (e.g. rules of evidence, "beyond a reasonable doubt") necessary to convict one of a criminal act.

In other words, all someone has to do is tell a judge that they're afraid you might hurt them, the judge has to agree that it's a possibility, and you lose your right to bear arms forever. And the judge will almost always do so: think of the bad press if you refused to grant a restraining order and someone actually got violent. That's why most requests are granted.]

[leroy jenkins]

No, the Letterman case proves MY point and disproves yours.

In the Letterman case, the restraining order was IN FORCE the moment it was signed by the judge. And, pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act, passed in 1994, "The Full Faith and Credit provision of VAWA, 18 U.S.C. 2265, requires all state and tribal courts to enforce valid civil and criminal protection orders issued by foreign jurisdictions as though they had been issued by the non-issuing, enforcing state or tribal court." http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents.../chapter6.html

This is the definition of "guilty until proven innocent": Letterman was subject to the terms of the New Mexico order no matter where he was at the time, based entirely on the word of an insane person in New Mexico. There was no due process, no ability to present his side of the case, no ability to question the accuser, etc.

That is NOT DUE PROCESS. The fact that Letterman was able to successfully APPEAL the restraining order -- after the fact -- does not mean that he was never subject to its provisions. Nor does it mean that it was magically never granted.

Meanwhile, those people who aren't David Letterman ($millions, legal staff on retainer) have to deal with the consequences: being unable to live in their own house, see their own children, or own firearms, just for starters. The fact that these rights are sometimes restored does not remove the FACT that they were taken away for a period of time -- a punishment meted out without due process.

Game, set, match.

Dude, hes a lawyer, he knows better than us peons, like he knows that guilty until proven innocent IS due process cus due process has different definitions and shit and we're just ignorant.

You don't have ot go to law school to realize that letterman should never of had to go to court at all. This isnt 'oh the system isnt perfect' he never even was in the same room as the crazy bitch.


This isnt even mentioning that he totally proved to me that the 2nd amendment was not about protection from tyranny. I guess I'm just too stupid to ever understand that one, but he totally proved me wrong, me and that dumbass jefferson.

traffic tickets should be viewed as a stupidity tax. Don't whine when you speed or run a red light right in front of a cop - it just means you need to pay better attention.

Yea getting a speeding ticket doesnt bother me that much unless its something like, 42 in a 35 15 feet before it turns to a 45 like the SLC pig wrote me, thats clearly just extortion. What actually does piss me off is seeing the cops out there writing tickets to generate revenue when they claim they dont have enough officers to investigate property crimes.

I get that you were just making an example, which I kind of nitpicked, but anyone saying the cops need more money makes me seriously scratch my head. I'll stop giving you shit because I do agree with your basic point about wasteful spending.

[Art Shirk]

You don't have ot go to law school to realize that letterman should never of had to go to court at all.

Yes, he should have had to go, and no, that does not mean due process was neglected.


"Judge Daniel Sanchez quickly approved the order but overturned it after Letterman's lawyers confronted him."

Loaded language by a columnist with an agenda. "Quickly?" Quickly at the hearing? So what? I have had judges rule before my ass was in a chair. "Confronted?" Confronted as if the Judge had done something improper?

Point being, any crazy person can sue anyone else, or try to get an RO, for damn near anything and the unfortunate truth is that the respondent must show up to assert their rights or case, whether that be an argument on the merits or a frivolous 12b6 claim. This fact alone DOES NOT mean that due process was neglected. If Letterman's lawyers had shown to the original hearing, there would have been no RO. As Steve basically said, due process doesnt mean shit is easy, or even all together fair, it is really about opportunity.

Unless this was an ex parte hearing? The "article" said "Letterman was not notified of the hearing and was not present for it, so he couldn't present evidence on his own behalf." I would want to know whether this is accurate, or if Letterman thought that the dude was so whacko that the Court system would handle the heavy lifting and sift the guy out.

[Art Shirk]

This is the definition of "guilty until proven innocent": Letterman was subject to the terms of the New Mexico order no matter where he was at the time, based entirely on the word of an insane person in New Mexico. There was no due process, no ability to present his side of the case, no ability to question the accuser, etc.

I don't disagree that this RO was bullshit, but the reason these orders are temporary is to give some relief in situations that require immediate attention. I think a working system needs this method of relief with the appropriate balancing tests. Which, in the case of ROs, is that the damage to the plaintiff outweighs the damage to the defendant.

I suppose I would ask Spats, do you think the legal system should ever afford immediate relief to someone? If yes, what other tempering factors would you consider besides immediate threat and balancing the harm of granting versus that of the injunction? Again, I dont think the judge in the Letterman case used sound judgment, but we are talking about procedure.

[Buke]

ETA: The notion that the founding fathers intended the 2nd Amendent as a protection against government tyranny is a myth. As I noted above, the 2nd Amendment's original purpose was to provide an alternative to a large standing army. See Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment

Steve,
My guess is that we generally agree. However, I read the bulk of the article that you linked to and it seemed to make two arguments. First that the founding fathers intended the 2nd amendment as a protection against the perils of a standing army and second that an armed population unified against a tyranical government would always prevail.

From the article:

The logic of my argument about the Revolution, people’s war, and an armed citizen’s militia is quite simple. A people’s revolutionary guerrilla war can only be waged successfully by a society that shares on a massive scale a common ideological commitment. That the Americans fought precisely such a war is the best indication of the massive, majoritarian support for the war. They were able to do so, however, because of one fact—which I consider the most important single fact about the Revolution, and which alone made a protest and a fight to defend their liberties possible—the almost universal ownership of firearms, expertise in their usage, and membership in a citizen’s militia, which characterized the American scene.

The concluding paragraph:

Thus we see that the experiences of the Revolutionary War confirmed in the minds of the Founders the teachings of the Whigs: An armed citizenry was both a check on domestic tyranny and the most desirable form of national defense. It was for the security of a free state from these perils that the Founders sought the protection of a well-regulated militia.

What I took from the article was that the founders wanted to ensure that the people had the right to bear arms to protect against a large army which could be used against the people by a tyrannical government. The article argued fairly effectively that the American revolution was a guerrilla war fought by the armed populace against a standing army that was the tool of a tyrannical government. By inference, the second amendment was put in place to ensure that if it was necessary to fight another revolution, the people would have the tools to do so.

Did I misread the article? I'm an engineer not a historian and certainly not a constitutional lawyer. I don't know anything about the Independent Institute and their bias but the article seemed pretty well researched and it seemed to support the idea that ultimately the people need guns so that if need be they can replace their government with force. Luckily, we have a judicial system that honors due process, a legislature that fairly legitimately represents the population due to the democratic nature of their election and an executive branch that is kept in check. It's hard to imagine ever needing to use guns US for these reasons but just because it's hard to imagine doesn't mean that it's not possible.

[Bobby Stainless]

Off topic:

Dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/ci_14706368

Why anyone would open carry is beyond me, but to open carry a unloaded gun is just beyond pathetic.

[leroy jenkins]

Luckily, we have a judicial system that honors due process, a legislature that fairly legitimately represents the population due to the democratic nature of their election and an executive branch that is kept in check. It's hard to imagine ever needing to use guns US for these reasons but just because it's hard to imagine doesn't mean that it's not possible.

Yes it was hard for the romans to imagine their empire falling as well. Just because you have a hard time imagining something doesnt make it impossible, as you said. It is more a reflection of your perception than of reality. The american empire has existed for the blink of an eye and its already got tons of problems. Thinking things are going to be just fine and dandy for the foreseeable future just cus this is murica is about the least logical outlook possible. It is quite likely things will be fine for a long time, but eventually they will not be, one way or another.

It probably will not happen within our lifetimes, but every stable society eventually decays into anarchy or tyranny.

Funny, arguing this point to americans feels like butting your head against a brick wall, when I mentioned this to an immigrant from the former soviet block they acted like it was a universal truth that didnt need saying.




Also, the only reason to ever open carry is if you're more worried about protecting from animals than people. Open carrying an unloaded gun in an urban area is for retarded fat people, as can be seen clearly.

[Tippster]

Dude. Rome was a single realm ruled by a single entity who got guidance from the Senate - all aristocrats, no input from the people at all. If you honestly think the POTUS, Congress, and quasi-inependent States are just like the Roman Empire then I surmise your tin foil dunce cap is too tight.

[leroy jenkins]

Dude. Rome was a single realm ruled by a single entity who got guidance from the Senate - all aristocrats, no input from the people at all. If you honestly think the POTUS, Congress, and quasi-inependent States are just like the Roman Empire then I surmise your tin foil dunce cap is too tight.

I never said they were just like it. Its just an example of a stable prosperous empire.

OK lets see some other epires throughout history, well theres the spanish empire, hmmm, lets see, no that country never had a civil war after that empire.

You could argue that the british empire enjoyed a peaceful decline, but its just a matter of time.


Is there a country or even geographical region that hasnt enjoyed war on its own soil, anarchy, or tyranny of some form in the past 1000 years? I am sure there is somewhere, but I can't think of anywhere. To think america is different is silly, and I really don't see how anyone could desire to argue this point. We got a good system now, despite the fact the founding fathers never imagined the kind of power corporations could have post globalization, but things are still pretty damn good, I'm not saying its imminent and this is a sound reason to start stockpiling arms and ammo, but I am saying it is likely enough that it makes sense to have the right to bear arms guaranteed separate from self defense and sporting purposes.




Also, if you honestly think america isn't ruled by aristocrats your dunce cap would be almost as tight. Its not an absolute tyranny but the people are not running this country, or else the war on drugs would be over.

[Jer]

I am a genius because:

1) I read the AP wire.
2) I am a lawyer.
3) I spend most of my time travelling outside the US on the 'rent's $$.

So how's the USA gonna end up, geniuses? Lemme guess - things will just drift farther and farther left and pretty soon all the other nations of the world will realise how awesome we are and join us in One World Government and we will all live in peace forever?

How do I know you're a moron? "It can't happen to me". "It'll never happen here".

[userA]

Look, I'm not a gun control nut. I own several firearms and have no problem with responsible use nor with responsible CC.

But let's get the history straight.

It's ironic that most 2nd Amendment zealots are such gung ho supporters of the centralized military which the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent.

Alot of my overly zealous comrades believe the two entities can thrive together.

[Tippster]

Also, if you honestly think america isn't ruled by aristocrats your dunce cap would be almost as tight. Its not an absolute tyranny but the people are not running this country, or else the war on drugs would be over.

Whut? Boehner is a former Bartender who got a Bachelors' degree at Xavier U. (not Harvard) and went into Plastics sales, so hardly a blue-blood... and he's the 3rd most powerful man in the country! He fucks up and bam - there's somebody else in that slot. Remember Dennis Hastert? Nancy Pelosi? Not exactly permanent fixtures in their position, unlike the Senators of Rome who held their posts by right of birth. Look at the Tea Party revolution - hardly generated by the elite (conspiracy theorists aside.)

Our "Monarch" gets replaced by the will of the people every 8 years at longest. We have the most stable democratic government on the planet for a reason. To bitch and whine about degrees of freedom is funny, compared to what could be (ie China or Saudi Arabia.)

The war on drugs is still supported by a large number of people when it comes down to it... possibly a majority, but more likely a very loud barely minority. We'll see what happens.

[leroy jenkins]

Whut? Boehner is a former Bartender who got a Bachelors' degree at Xavier U. (not Harvard) and went into Plastics sales, so hardly a blue-blood... and he's the 3rd most powerful man in the country! He fucks up and bam - there's somebody else in that slot. Remember Dennis Hastert? Nancy Pelosi? Not exactly permanent fixtures in their position, unlike the Senators of Rome who held their posts by right of birth. Look at the Tea Party revolution - hardly generated by the elite (conspiracy theorists aside.)

Our "Monarch" gets replaced by the will of the people every 8 years at longest. We have the most stable democratic government on the planet for a reason. To bitch and whine about degrees of freedom is funny, compared to what could be (ie China or Saudi Arabia.)

The war on drugs is still supported by a large number of people when it comes down to it... possibly a majority, but more likely a very loud barely minority. We'll see what happens.

Are you really this dense? Our monarch gets replaced, with one of two slightly different choices which are supplied to us and are both beholden to corporate interests.

You really think the speaker of the house is running things?

[13]

Are you really this dense? Our monarch gets replaced, with one of two slightly different choices which are supplied to us and are both beholden to corporate interests.

You really think the speaker of the house is running things?

While executive power has expanded in recent years, the White House still has to contend with Congress and the Supreme Court on many occasions.

Hardly an aristocracy.

[Jethro]

I am not a member of the NRA nor do I support them in any way, I dont think I have fear mongered at all, and the only griping I do about america being oppressive is because we are becoming more so, and there is nowhere else I want to move to instead, and I havent griped about that at all in this thread.

All I have said is that the 2nd amendment is there for when all others options to redress government are exhausted. Is that fear mongering?

America is exceptional in some ways, but all stable societies turn to anarchy tyranny or war sooner or later, and in that way America will not be exceptional. This isnt fear mongering its just not pie in the sky idealism. Its history.



This whole thread drift debate between you and I was started because I said I had objections to the way the lautenberg act works, I said some people have their property and rights violated, ak posts an example from his own life, and instead of admitting it you basically say, oh you're not a lawyer you don't understand, bla bla bla, lawyer speak, bla bla. Dude, guilty until you prove yourself innocent is not my definition of due process, I really don't give a fuck what they told you passes for it in law school, but the story ak posted is not ok with me, and I am pretty damn sure its not what the founding fathers had in mind when they envisioned due process. If you view it as collateral damage to protect the victims of domestic violence that is possible acceptable, but your assertion that there is nothing wrong with that scenario is pretty fucked.


You still have told me what kind of lawyer you are, besides a big one.

Leroy, you only have the firearm rights you have now because others have stood against Second ammendment infringements in the past. That group is the NRA, and your arguments for firearm ownership are the same as theirs(and mine). Why don't you join the NRA and become a member of the oldest civil rights organization in America? America, fuck yeah!

[leroy jenkins]

Leroy, you only have the firearm rights you have now because others have stood against Second ammendment infringements in the past. That group is the NRA, and your arguments for firearm ownership are the same as theirs(and mine). Why don't you join the NRA and become a member of the oldest civil rights organization in America? America, fuck yeah!

Perhaps if instead of spending most of that money supporting whatever political candidates the GOP offers up regardless of their voting record on guns (bush sr supported the absolutely illogical import ban) they actually helped fund legal battles that could become landmark cases that might reach the supreme court and set a precedent to help protect and expand our rights. I think once heller vs dc really got going they contributed a little, but I'm not even sure about that. I do know there are literally hundreds of cases from chicago, new york, california, that could potentially challenge the status quo of oppression in those states, and at least a small handful that have a real chance of succeeding in doing just that, but the nra ignores them.

If I wanted to fund GOP campaigns I'd skip the middle man be ok with not getting that cool NRA bumper sticker for my money. Supporting candidates as a means to protect gun rights is like using a shotgun as a fly swatter.

[leroy jenkins]

While executive power has expanded in recent years, the White House still has to contend with Congress and the Supreme Court on many occasions.

Hardly an aristocracy.

Yea, thanks, I am familiar with our systems of checks and balances, I remember that cute little animated video with the song and all that.

Let me ask you this, how many of those in any branch do not have an r or d next to their name? Fucking none right?

[Jethro]

Perhaps if instead of spending most of that money supporting whatever political candidates the GOP offers up regardless of their voting record on guns (bush sr supported the absolutely illogical import ban) they actually helped fund legal battles that could become landmark cases that might reach the supreme court and set a precedent to help protect and expand our rights. I think once heller vs dc really got going they contributed a little, but I'm not even sure about that. I do know there are literally hundreds of cases from chicago, new york, california, that could potentially challenge the status quo of oppression in those states, and at least a small handful that have a real chance of succeeding in doing just that, but the nra ignores them.

If I wanted to fund GOP campaigns I'd skip the middle man be ok with not getting that cool NRA bumper sticker for my money. Supporting candidates as a means to protect gun rights is like using a shotgun as a fly swatter.

Good points. I am a member, but I am at odds with the political candidate side also.

[13]

Let me ask you this, how many of those in any branch do not have an r or d next to their name? Fucking none right?

Let me ask you this, what does party affiliation have to do with aristocracy? Fucking none right?

[leroy jenkins]

Good points. I am a member, but I am at odds with the political candidate side also.

I'm not jewish, but if thats how you feel, give your money to jews for the preservation of firearms instead. They support the litigious side much more.

Let me ask you this, what does party affiliation have to do with aristocracy? Fucking none right?

The fact that in order to get elected to fucking anything you have to toe either the d or r party line and conform to what they think an acceptable form of behavior is, ie, dont piss off the real rulers, who are the aristocracy. I really have to explain this? I mean yea, the american people could start voting 3rd party but they wont, they just choose between the two preapproved sides and the vast majority just spend most of their energy (at least political thought wise) making fun of the other side for being different than them, when really most people on both sides are suckers who are distracted by partisanship like a donkey is distracted by a carrot, while not being much smarter than the donkey.

You can come from the gutter and become a 'successful' politician, they will let you dance for them, but dance for them you must.

[Chugachjed]

3) I spend most of my time travelling outside the US on the 'rent's $$.

Dude, you time travel?

[Tippster]

Wait - so the real blame is the laziness of the American electorate then, not corporate aristocracy bullshit pseudo-theory. Perot made lot of noise as a 3rd party candidate, and he was batshit insane. Should he have been elected just to make a fucking point?

There are several members of Congress who are independent. The fact that you cannot get one elected in your district is not the GOP's or Dem's fault - all they're doing is promoting their candidates.

[leroy jenkins]

Wait - so the real blame is the laziness of the American electorate then, not corporate aristocracy bullshit pseudo-theory. Perot made lot of noise as a 3rd party candidate, and he was batshit insane. Should he have been elected just to make a fucking point?

There are several members of Congress who are independent. The fact that you cannot get one elected in your district is not the GOP's or Dem's fault - all they're doing is promoting their candidates.

I didn't say it was some grand conspiracy, because it does not need to be. The fact is the aristocracy takes advantage of the american public's stupidity laziness fear and whatever else and manages to get them to vote for basically the same damn person over and over again.

The point we were arguing was that the aristocracy runs things, which they do. How much we spend on corn subsidies, the warn on drugs, etc? Who wants these things? The aristocracy. If i was going to get all conspiracy theory I could also posit the war in iraq and a bunch of other shit.

Do I really need to explain this to you? I mean i get you live in DC so you're going to be a bit more clueless about the government than most, in a very well informed way, but still.

[Jethro]

I'm not jewish, but if thats how you feel, give your money to jews for the preservation of firearms instead. They support the litigious side much more.

I don't follow you. Are the jews for or against firearm ownership. Not that there would be any stereotyping going on here

[doughboyshredder]

Off topic:

Dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/ci_14706368

Why anyone would open carry is beyond me, but to open carry a unloaded gun is just beyond pathetic.

Loaded clips on one hip, unloaded gun on the other. Doesn't seem pathetic to me. With practice you should be able to load that clip without any more than a second delay while drawing.

My neighbor (who I really think is an awesome woman) was kind of freaked out the other night, because she saw someone riding a mountain bike with a rifle strapped across their back on one of our local trails. She actually called the police. I told her that there was nothing illegal about that, and she seemed really surprised.