James Hardy

[In space no one can hear]

This thread is even more amusing now with spammy guy

 

Can a mod change his avatar to a can of spam?

 

 

Be careful,

 

I think he's the same guy that caused them to close down the I-90 in Buffalo last night.

[Trader]

Not a big deal... I pull a gun on my father all the time. Totally normal

 

 

Hardy cannot bring his pistol(s) into NYS without obtaining a NYS pistol permit. It's hard to get. I have one and it took the better part of a year. I do not have a criminal past. It's likely that Hardy will not get one in NYS at all.

 

Brandishing or pointing a weapon will get your permit revoked anywhere. Hardy does not need to be charged to get it lifted. The issuing body has the right to revoke your permit at any time (in NY) I would bet it's the same in La. or wherever he is. I do not know where his mother lives it might be a dangerous neighborhood. Some guys who have permits make a

 

habit of carrying them.

 

He may have pulled out the gun to get out of the way if there was an argument with his father. You do not want to grapple with someone with a loaded gun on your hip.

 

Hardy may need some conseling and some supervision. If I were the Bills i want him in Buffalo rooming with one of my trusted veterans. I would also want him in regular contact with a conselor even a shrink.

[Big Turk]

Hey, the Cowboys teams that won super bowls in the 90's didn't have all church going, god fearing people on the team...IMHO, every team has these type of players and as long as they are good enough on the field their transgressions off the field are often overlooked...

[BravinSeattle]

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dl.../805130306/tbd/

Way to go JP! Jesus!

[Nanker]

I see Hogboy's back.

[Steely Dan]

Just read the article and haven't read the 12 pages (on my computer) of posts. I hate to say I told you so, especially because this is a second round pick at a position the Bills really need to fill. It looks a lot more like the Bills missed out on Limas Sweed.

 

I thought the Bills scouting department looked deeply into these things like they did with Marshawn last year. This better not be another Pacman situation. It sounds like he hasn't let go of his anger yet and if that's true more trouble is sure to come.

[HeHateMe78]

i agree the kid needs to make better moves and avoid the negative element -- but what is with the gun hate?

 

what part of france is orchard park in?

 

guy has a constitutional G-damn right to own weapons. for all we know his father WAS threatening him.

Acutally, The 2nd amendment has been construed to bestow upon citzens a right to bear arms to maintain a militia only (see U.S. v. Miller). Thus, it gives a collective right not an individual for all you people who assume you have a constitutional right to own a gun. Until the case of D.C. v. heller is concluded, there is no fundamental or absolute right to own a gun. It is entirely up to each states discretion to allow people to bear arms or not.

 

Please learn the law before you try to recite it to strengthen your argument or make someone look stupid

[Alaska Darin]

Acutally, The 2nd amendment has been construed to bestow upon citzens a right to bear arms to maintain a militia only (see U.S. v. Miller). Thus, it gives a collective right not an individual for all you people who assume you have a constitutional right to own a gun. Until the case of D.C. v. heller is concluded, there is no fundamental or absolute right to own a gun. It is entirely up to the state to allow people to bear arms or not.

 

Please learn the law before you try to recite it to strengthen your argument or make someone look stupid

Horseshit.

[HeHateMe78]

Horseshit.

Care to elaborate why its horseshit?

[Alaska Darin]

Care to elaborate why its horseshit?

You know exactly why it's horseshit.

[HeHateMe78]

You know exactly why it's horseshit.

Please enlighten me! I am in law school and just did a 20page paper on the 2nd amendment. In the only case regarding the 2nd (U.S. v. Miller) the Suprem court concluded that the 2nd does not provide an individual right to keep and bear arms, merely a collective right of each state to arm and maintain its own militia. So once again, do you care to elaborate?

[Grouse89]

Please enlighten me! I am in law school and just did a 20page paper on the 2nd amendment. In the only case regarding the 2nd (U.S. v. Miller) the Suprem court concluded that the 2nd does not provide an individual right to keep and bear arms, merely a collective right of each state to arm and maintain its own militia. So once again, do you care to elaborate?

Yes it does allow an individual the right to keep and bear arms, You just failed your paper son.

 

 

How do I know? Because lots of people own guns and it's LEGAL that is how

[Lori]

"Get your popcorn ready ..."

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Please enlighten me! I am in law school and just did a 20page paper on the 2nd amendment. In the only case regarding the 2nd (U.S. v. Miller) the Suprem court concluded that the 2nd does not provide an individual right to keep and bear arms, merely a collective right of each state to arm and maintain its own militia. So once again, do you care to elaborate?

 

 

Why are they wasting time in DC arguing this? They should have just asked the law student who did a paper on it.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Yes it does allow an individual the right to keep and bear arms, You just failed your paper son.

 

 

How do I know? Because lots of people own guns and it's LEGAL that is how

 

 

You don't fail a class if you go along with the professor's left wing views.

[HeHateMe78]

Yes it does allow an individual the right to keep and bear arms, You just failed your paper son.

 

 

How do I know? Because lots of people own guns and it's LEGAL that is how

Not sure I would pass anything if you were grading it w/ all your constitutional knowledge. The constitution does not give an individual right but each State has the oppurtunity to allow people to keep and bear arms or not; hence, "lots of people own guns and it's legal." By no stretch is the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right. However, the Supreme court has agreed to hear a case on the 2nd amendment rights and perhaps might overturn their previous intrepratation.

However, until that day,the previous ruling stands in U.S. v. Miller that their is no individual right merely a collective.

[Grouse89]

You don't fail a class if you go along with the professor's left wing views.

Haha good point. All I know is that there is going to be a serious revolution in this country if they ever abolish the second admendment. I have heard many people say that if the police/swat/government comes to their door to take their guns they are going to die because they will be shooting at them. They aren't going to give their guns up peacefully.

[Alaska Darin]

Please enlighten me! I am in law school and just did a 20page paper on the 2nd amendment. In the only case regarding the 2nd (U.S. v. Miller) the Suprem court concluded that the 2nd does not provide an individual right to keep and bear arms, merely a collective right of each state to arm and maintain its own militia. So once again, do you care to elaborate?

I don't know where you're going to Law School but the Decision of (U.S. v Miller) was ambiguous at best.

 

The key paragraph in the decision:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158"

 

I love how stating that the Second Amendment not guaranteeing the right to keep and bear a "shotgun with a barrell less than 18 inches in length" because of judicial notice that it isn't ordinary military equipment or be used in the common defense" has been extrapolated by anti-gun weenies into something incredibly more. That paragraph meets both the Standard Model and the State's Rights "theory".

 

If you're being taught different, then I feel sorry for you. There are more than 35 different Supreme Court instances where the justices have cited the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Including six by the Rehnquist court. The only current judge who hasn't issued or joined an opinion on the 2nd Amendment as a distinctively individual right is Breyer (among those who've issued an opinion).

 

Since you're on your way to being a lawyer, perhaps you can tell me which of the other Amendments in the original Bill of Rights weren't for the individual. Be specific.

[Grouse89]

Not sure I would pass anything if you were grading it w/ all your constitutional knowledge. The constitution does not give an individual right but each State has the oppurtunity to allow people to keep and bear arms or not; hence, "lots of people own guns and it's legal." By no stretch is the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right. However, the Supreme court has agreed to hear a case on the 2nd amendment rights and perhaps might overturn their previous intrepratation.

However, until that day,the previous ruling stands in U.S. v. Miller that their is no individual right merely a collective.

so according to you if the second amendment is thrown out or done away with I can still have my guns?

[In space no one can hear]

Not sure I would pass anything if you were grading it w/ all your constitutional knowledge. The constitution does not give an individual right but each State has the oppurtunity to allow people to keep and bear arms or not; hence, "lots of people own guns and it's legal." By no stretch is the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right. However, the Supreme court has agreed to hear a case on the 2nd amendment rights and perhaps might overturn their previous intrepratation.

However, until that day,the previous ruling stands in U.S. v. Miller that their is no individual right merely a collective.

 

 

Doesn't seem like anyone is willing to step up to the plate and have a discussion with you.

 

Maybe they are all over at this site.