Sheriff: Courthouse gunman's home is explosive trap

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

More guns! Murka!

Sheriff: Courthouse gunman's home is explosive trap

FORSYTH COUNTY, Ga. — The Forsyth County sheriff says he is confident the home of a man who shot a deputy Friday morning is set as an explosive trap.

A deputy was shot at the Forsyth County Administration Building on East Main Street Friday morning.

Forsyth County Sheriff Duane Piper said that Dennis Marx drove up armed with an assault rifle, bullet proof vest, smoke grenades and a gas mask. He threw out stop sticks at the entrance so other cars could not drive up, Piper said. A deputy saw the man and came out to confront him and was shot in the leg through the windshield of the car.

Piper said Marx's home is "a bomb." Evidence shows he has not been living there for more than a week and has been staying at a hotel. He said it will take hours to clear the courthouse and the home.

The deputy, a 25-year veteran of the department, is expected to be OK, Piper said. He was taken to the North Fulton Hospital in Roswell.

The SWAT team, which was on its way to a separate incident, arrived at the courthouse within 37 seconds.

Piper said Marx is dead.

The courthouse square was closed off because police were investigating the threat of possible explosives at the courthouse, law enforcement sources told Channel 2 Action News.

The gunman's attorney told Channel 2 she was representing him until Thursday, when she withdrew because he was unsatisfied with her negotiating skills. He was due in court on Friday for marijuana and firearms charges. The attorney said the man was a gun buyer and trader.

The attorney said she asked the man to undergo a psychological evaluation, but he refused.

Stay with Channel 2 Action News for updates on this developing story.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/deputy-shot-forsyth-co-courthouse/ngFsf/

[lostinblue 1,989]

If They cannot get a gun then no one will be harmed correct.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We'd have far fewer fatalities from gun violence for sure. But the tree of liberty is too damn thirsty so we must let the killing continue, right?

[Darnell 8,478]

massive flip out - that human.... still - it's a good deed that he's dead now...

[spookyturtle 9,465]

We'd have far fewer fatalities from gun violence for sure. But the tree of liberty is too damn thirsty so we must let the killing continue, right?

So why not start the movement to change the tree of liberty? Support candidates who are for stricter gun control. Get them elected, starting locally, then statewide and elect them to Congress. When they are in the majority, then change the Constitution. That is the way it has to happen. No sarcasm intended. There is a provision in the Constitution to do what so many of you here want to do. It has to start somewhere.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So why not start the movement to change the tree of liberty? Support candidates who are for stricter gun control. Get them elected, starting locally, then statewide and elect them to Congress. When they are in the majority, then change the Constitution. That is the way it has to happen. No sarcasm intended. There is a provision in the Constitution to do what so many of you here want to do. It has to start somewhere.

The Constitution needs no change. The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment merely needs to be corrected, the fraud that's been perpetrated upon the American people merely needs to be undone. That's all.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The Constitution needs no change. The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment merely needs to be corrected, the fraud that's been perpetrated upon the American people merely needs to be undone. That's all.

Then it's been misinterpreted since it's inception. Who needs to take the stand and decide that it's not being interpreted correctly? The Supreme Court? Congress? The President? It seems that the fraud has held up quite well. What does the law of the land allow for reinterpreting the Constitution, and the Second Amendment specifically? Serious questions, I don't know the procedure.

Actually, the Constitution does need to change. If it is reinterpreted, the wording has to be changed to become very specif about what i actually means.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Ban bombs. To many mass killings with bombs

[lostinblue 1,989]

Ban bombs. To many mass killings with bombs

Ban knives also and black cars ......

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Then it's been misinterpreted since it's inception. Who needs to take the stand and decide that it's not being interpreted correctly? The Supreme Court? Congress? The President? It seems that the fraud has held up quite well. What does the law of the land allow for reinterpreting the Constitution, and the Second Amendment specifically? Serious questions, I don't know the procedure.

Actually, the Constitution does need to change. If it is reinterpreted, the wording has to be changed to become very specif about what i actually means.

Nope, that happened more recently.

Then it's been misinterpreted since it's inception. Who needs to take the stand and decide that it's not being interpreted correctly? The Supreme Court? Congress? The President? It seems that the fraud has held up quite well. What does the law of the land allow for reinterpreting the Constitution, and the Second Amendment specifically? Serious questions, I don't know the procedure.

Actually, the Constitution does need to change. If it is reinterpreted, the wording has to be changed to become very specif about what i actually means.

Au contraire, it was well understood for more than 200 years what it actually means. As Justice Stevens observed:

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[SMOKE 1,426]

Nope, that happened more recently.

so...when did 'The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment' begin?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

so...when did 'The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment' begin?

Formally in 2008. Some six years ago. The movement to achieve that misinterpretation started in the late 70's when radical nutcases took control of the NRA. As Justice Stevens observed:

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

But by all means, do keep pretending that it isn't so.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[SMOKE 1,426]

the opinion of a senile liberal. not suprised

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The informed analysis of an accomplished Supreme Court Justice and the simple, undeniable fact that for well over 200 years there was never any misunderstanding about the scope and limits of the Second Amendment speak louder than your weak response.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Nope, that happened more recently.

Au contraire, it was well understood for more than 200 years what it actually means. As Justice Stevens observed:

You keep quoting that same piece over and over. One man's opinion that has yet to hold up. Face it, it's going to be a huge undertaking to do what you and a few others here think is so simple. The Second Amendment has held up whenever it has been tested. If it was as simple as you think, it would have been overturned decades ago, maybe when the Kennedy's and MLK were assassinated. That would have been an ideal timeframe. Illinois was just forced to allow CC, another lost opportunity. It's not even close to what you propose. Regardless of your interpretation or mine, it is what it is. As I've asked a few times, how do you go about changing it? And by you, I mean those that want to change what the Constitution currently allows. It will be decades before it happens, if ever. Any politician running on a no gun campaign is done before he starts. But if you want to change it, you have to start somewhere. I challenge you and those like minded to do so. The Constitution allows for that too.