Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by Squib Joe on Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:38 pm
This makes us look bad
"The weight is a sign of reliability. I always go for reliability." - Boris "The Blade" Yurinov
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by Holland&Holland on Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:52 pm
Squib Joe wrote:This makes us look bad
How so?
-
Holland&Holland - Posts: 12661 [View]
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by Squib Joe on Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:58 pm
Holland&Holland wrote:Squib Joe wrote:This makes us look bad
How so?
Inside joke from the old board
See also: "Who was your instructor?"
"The weight is a sign of reliability. I always go for reliability." - Boris "The Blade" Yurinov
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by Holland&Holland on Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:05 pm
Squib Joe wrote:Holland&Holland wrote:Squib Joe wrote:This makes us look bad
How so?
Inside joke from the old board
See also: "Who was your instructor?"
Got it.
-
Holland&Holland - Posts: 12661 [View]
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by photogpat on Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:28 pm
Squib Joe wrote:This makes us look bad
+1 I agree
Nothing to see here. Continue swimming.
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by Holland&Holland on Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:42 pm
Ghost wrote:+1
-1
-
Holland&Holland - Posts: 12661 [View]
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by yukonjasper on Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:50 pm
In before the lock.
Heffay is a dousch.
Heffay is a dousch.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
-
yukonjasper - Posts: 5823 [View]
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:31 pm
- Location: eagan
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by xd ED on Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:09 pm
yukonjasper wrote:In before the lock.
Heffay is a dousch.
Learn how to spell... douche.
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by Ghost on Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:05 pm
Holland&Holland wrote:Ghost wrote:+1
-1
+1
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by yukonjasper on Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:55 pm
Heffay is a douche.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
-
yukonjasper - Posts: 5823 [View]
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:31 pm
- Location: eagan
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by infidel on Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:47 am
It's like I'm back in middle-school. Is it possible to discuss a topic without personal attacks? 
“If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.” - John Ashley
Disclaimer: Do not assume from this post, that I either agree or disagree with any other issue brought up in this thread.
Disclaimer: Do not assume from this post, that I either agree or disagree with any other issue brought up in this thread.
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by Seismic Sam on Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:41 am
To answer your question, Infidel, the answer is "No, not really...." You have to remember that this site is the bombed out remains of what was once a thriving cyber-community, and Heffay left years ago, so calling him a douche is just a joke anyway...
By the way, your momma dresses funny.....
By the way, your momma dresses funny.....
-
Seismic Sam - Gone but not forgotten
- Posts: 5515 [View]
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:02 pm
- Location: Pass By-You, Loosianana
Re: Minnesota Saturday Night Special Law
by crbutler on Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:19 am
Discussing changing a law one disagrees with is reasonable.
Claiming that a law on the books is bad because it could be interpreted badly, but at least to this point has not, and really has no negative consequences for the vast majority until current precedent has been overturned, and that it should be interpreted more broadly than it has been seems to me to be poking a hornets nest for no real gain.
I would be spending a bunch of money to overturn this myself if it was interpreted the way Russtra claims it should be, but American jurisprudence has the concept of precedent and so far precedent meant that the law does not mean what he claims.
While I agree there is a lot of poorly written law and the people would be better served by the legislature cleaning that up rather than making up new regulations, the truth is if we try and change the current law to match his desired outcome, we are opening the door for new intrusion into this area.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
If you disagree, don't come crying to me when the roof falls in on you and that sleeping dog mauls you.
Claiming that a law on the books is bad because it could be interpreted badly, but at least to this point has not, and really has no negative consequences for the vast majority until current precedent has been overturned, and that it should be interpreted more broadly than it has been seems to me to be poking a hornets nest for no real gain.
I would be spending a bunch of money to overturn this myself if it was interpreted the way Russtra claims it should be, but American jurisprudence has the concept of precedent and so far precedent meant that the law does not mean what he claims.
While I agree there is a lot of poorly written law and the people would be better served by the legislature cleaning that up rather than making up new regulations, the truth is if we try and change the current law to match his desired outcome, we are opening the door for new intrusion into this area.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
If you disagree, don't come crying to me when the roof falls in on you and that sleeping dog mauls you.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests