Arizona Gov. Brewer Vetoes Campuses Carry

[PegLeg45]

It's TAB, He's in Ca. Do I need to elaborate on that train of thought ?
TAB, simple words for simple minds, The right to keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Keep, means to have and possess, irrelevant here, BEAR, means to carry on or about your person, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means I can BEAR them any f*cking way I please.

The 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So by default, it is a Right.

YOU have to show us where it says it is not a Right.

Here endeth the lesson.

[tt11758]

Here endeth the lesson.

It should, but something tells me it won't.   

[MikeBjerum]

While I am saddened that this was vetoed, I agree with not wanting laws that are focused to narrowly or can not stand the test of Court. 

Look what happened with the Bill she signed that simply said that no lower jurisdiction could pass a law preventing law enforcement officers from doing their jobs, and that if as a secondary offense officers found reason to believe a law was being broken that the officers must enforce the federal law.  Pretty basic and simple, but look what happened to it.

A thinking person will pick up on the need to stop "knee jerk" legislation, and work with the big picture to restore our Rights.

[TAB]

You guys are mistaking what you want, for reality.

[Solus]

You guys are mistaking what you want, for reality.

You, on the other hand, are accepting what is reality now and sacrificing what it should become.

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

You, on the other hand, are accepting what is reality now and sacrificing what it should become.

unless there is a major shift in the SCOUS, there is no way thats going to change.

Fighting a cuase that has zero chance of winning in court, is foolish and a waste of time/money/effort.   You could be using those resources in other places to actually do some good.

remember heller was 5-4, it was also extremly narrow.  We were very, very close to having it go the other way.

[Solus]

unless there is a major shift in the SCOUS, there is no way thats going to change.

Fighting a cuase that has zero chance of winning in court, is foolish and a waste of time/money/effort.   You could be using those resources in other places to actually do some good.

remember heller was 5-4, it was also extremly narrow.  We were very, very close to having it go the other way.

I know.  I heard many folks saying we shouldn't be trying to do it and take the chance we would lose since the odds were stacked against us.

I'm glad someone had the courage and fortitude to carry the fight for us.

[TAB]

I know.  I heard many folks saying we shouldn't be trying to do it and take the chance we would lose since the odds were stacked against us.

I'm glad someone had the courage and fortitude to carry the fight for us.

would you feel the same if they had lost?

 luckly it came out in or favor, but it could have went the other way.

What most people don't understand, the lawyers that tried heller, had a plan of action that had been though about for a long peroid of time, they then went looking for a case.  Not the other way around, where the case came up and  then they planed thier argument.

[MikeBjerum]

unless there is a major shift in the SCOUS, there is no way thats going to change.

Fighting a cuase that has zero chance of winning in court, is foolish and a waste of time/money/effort.   You could be using those resources in other places to actually do some good.

remember heller was 5-4, it was also extremly narrow.  We were very, very close to having it go the other way.

How many times have the real change makers in this world been told that?

I'm damn glad you weren't around in 1776 or we would all be chipping in for a royal wedding gift 

[TAB]

in 1776 we actually had a chance.  CCW a right, not a chance in hell to win in court.