[Kaylee]

so okay... after two days and change of hardly stopping to eat, move, or sleep, I *finally* got through all however-many-hundred pages of UC.

And I just gotta ask.. how much truth is there to the "bumbling, arrogant, statist, incompetent" stereotype of BATF agents? I mean, sure you can find goons, just like you really can find a barely-literate backwoods mouthbreathing wifebeater who just happens to be solidly RKBA as well.... so one or two examples ain't convincing in themselves.

I suppose what I'm asking is this.. is it really a agency-wide disaster of ineptitude and statist posturing? You know, like the DMV, but with guns? Or is it more like they say -- a few bad apples, but mostly just bored "civil servant" types who don't really give a darn one way or another as long as they get their federal pension and other gov't bennies?

Are there good, dedicated professionals we'd recognize and respect in that organization? Is the "all the other agencies look down their noses at them?" bit true? Has that changes since the "homeland security" re-org?

What I'd *really* like to hear is first-hand accounts. Not gunstore gossip, but real "I was talking with an agent the other day, and he said.." kinda things.

I'd like to know what's going on behind the stereotype, I suppose. No one wins a contest by underestimating the opposition.

-K

[ACP230]

I have had relatively few dealings with the ATF. The people I have talked to in the MI regional office have been professional and helpful. Its been several years since I had to call, which suits me considering the following.

There are documented events in the past in which ATF comes up looking pretty bad. An agent in Chicago sold guns to a street gang. Clerks at the NFA records office some years ago shredded or discarded registration forms so they wouldn't have so much to do. Agents have been caught lying about the completeness and accuracy of the NFA Registry in court and under oath. Then there are the racist Good Old Boy roundups which some ATF agents attended. (I don't think any of the participants were fired for this either.) The raid outside Waco, which ended up with Janet Reno's gassing of innocent kids, was staged at budget time so the ATF could get good press and leverage that into more $. Agents attacked yelling "It's Show Time!"

The BATF/BATFE is a very mixed bag.

[Pilgrim]

My neighbor is a FFL holder who had a compliance inspection drag on for three days. His is not a big shop. Finally my neighbor asked the inspector just what he was looking for. The inspector said he was convinced my neighbor had machine gun parts and was converting semi-auto rifles to full auto.

My neighbor told him fine, put a seal on the door and call his supervisor. The inspector had wasted enough of his time pawing around in his books and records and examining guns.

The inspector came the next day with his supervisor, examined the seal and saw that it had not been tampered with, and everyone entered the shop. My neighbor told them to go through all the parts bins he had to see if they could find machine gun parts. The inspector dug around in the parts bins and came up with a part he was sure was used for converting semi-auto to full auto. Only he couldn't find a matching picture in his book of illegal gun parts.

After several minutes had passed, my neighbor took the part and showed the supervisor what gun the part did fit. It was a slide action shotgun.

The supervisor looked at the inspector and said, "You are finished, aren't you?" The inspector said he wasn't finished with the compliance inspection. The supervisor then told the inspector that the compliance inspection was over and they were leaving. The supervisor apologized to my neighbor for all the time the inspector had wasted.

Yes, there are some out there.

[Hypnogator]

Kaylee,

In the late '70s I was a Special Agent of the U.S. Army CID at Ft. Lewis, WA, and worked numerous cases with the Seattle office of the BATF. The guys I worked with were some of the finest and most professional law enforcement officers I've ever had the privilege to be acquainted with. I recall one incident, in which I had an informant who had been offered hand grenades by a GI. He set up a meet for 1600 Fri afternoon, and informed me. I called ATF as a courtesy notification about 1400, and by 1530 they had two carloads of agents to act as backup. (Unfortunately, all the seller had were empty grenade casings.)

Having said that, I must point out that these were Special Agents, not inspectors. Most loved guns and I never saw any of them do or say anything to indicate that they would harrass any legitimate gun owner. I currently train law enforcement agencies all over the country, however, and have had several comment on how the BATF changed about a decade ago (when Clinton took over) so that the rank and file agents were encouraged to harrass and interfere with weapons commerce whenever possible. That's sad. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back now that the good guys are back in the leadership of our country.

[Chris Rhines]

The entire agency exists to create, enforce, and adjudicate unethical and unconstitutional regulations. That's enough for me to scorn anyone so employed, regradless of how professional they act.

- Chris

[Erik]

Every BATF agent I've met proved to be intelligent, articulate, relatively conservative, physically fit, clean cut FLEO drawn from either elsewhere in law enforcement or the military.

Are there exceptions? Sure. There always are, by definition.

[tyme]

If the BATF regulated all items in their purview to the same extent they do firearms, it would be illegal to smoke or drink anywhere but isolated areas or designated smoking buildings. There would be mandatory zoning so that the area around such smoking buildings was made keenly aware of the activity, and just a couple of upset nearby residents could get the whole thing shut down. You'd also need a backgrond check before buying cigarettes or alcohol from a store. Giving a cigarette or bottle of alcohol to a friend would be frowned upon.

I submit that the BATF is in essence a bureau of firearms. The taxes they collect from A&T just finance their firearm regulation and confiscation agenda.

[Standing Wolf]

Are we completely out of illegal aliens, Islamic terrorist savages, and common criminals?

[Wildalaska]

Every BATF agent I've met proved to be intelligent, articulate, relatively conservative, physically fit, clean cut FLEO drawn from either elsewhere in law enforcement or the military.

Ditto...a fine bunch of people. Our local regulatory insepctor is a gem too, she is very helpful and competant.

Wild:) Alaska

[Jim March]

The problem with the BATF is that they write regulations on gun issues, and then enforce 'em. That means that any slight violation of gun laws is taken "personally" and enforced out of all rational proportion to the actual threat or responsible use of law enforcement dollars.

California's Fish & Game Department acts in much the same insane manner where ferrets are concerned, and for the same reason: while most real street cops don't care much about the occasional skinnykitty, the Wardens of the DFG go flat-out nuts at even a rumor of a houseweasel.

[labgrade]

BATF is illegal in its conception.

That they actually enforce these laws is criminal.

Yup.

Many have had great success dealing with the kindler, gentler gestapo, but the hammer is there, & ready to fall whenever they wish.

That you've bougt into the lie at all is an indictment.

[Oleg Volk]

Maybe BATF employees lurking here would care to comment about their organization?

[MPFreeman]

The idea that the individuals are 'evil-racist-knuckledraggers' is incorrect. The agency is designed to repress and oppress and coerse citizens into paying taxes for excercizing a constitutionally protected and G-d given right. The individuals employed by such a regime are merely foot soldiers. Just as many of the Iraqi soldiers working for that evil regime.

[Henry Bowman]

MPFreeman has it right.

-Henry Bowman

BTW, the list of commenters on this thread is a "who's who" of THR!

[Coronach]

I would remind everyone that the BATF isn't illegal or unconstitutional until some law and/or court ruling makes it so. Now, we might all very well feel that it should be deemed so...but until the aformentioned happens, it ain't so.

This is a small, yet major distinction.

Mike

[rock jock]

UC isn't worth the paper its printed on.

[labgrade]

"The idea that the individuals are 'evil-racist-knuckledraggers' is incorrect."

Kee-rect, but ...

They're not racist (per se - although we all are aware of the racist ideals behind initial gun control laws .... ), nor knuckle-draggers neither - they know how to bring the wrath of god down whenever - very well, thank you. Knuckle-draggers are not so astute.

I'd not subscribe either to 'em.

But they are, even our "kindler, gentler JBTs (w/a smiley-face)," worthy of our utmost contempt. They enforce felony-level laws which runs totally contrary to the constitution & most any states' as well.

As w/Oleg, I'd like to hear a chime-in from any BATF-type who play here ... see their take on things.

Even our most friendly BATF "buds" who just do compliance checks will drop the hammer on you in a heartbeat if things aren't quite as they should be.

Ts not crossed, Is not dotted & you're likely up the river for 5-10+a $10-250K tag.

This agency, from its inception, is to felony-tag anyone who violates a recognized right, through the legislative process.

& is evil from the git-go - no matter what ultimate "goodly goa;" it may have.

[Wildalaska]

I would remind everyone that the BATF isn't illegal or unconstitutional until some law and/or court ruling makes it so. Now, we might all very well feel that it should be deemed so...but until the aformentioned happens, it ain't so.

Hooray!:D :D A voice of reason!

To add, and paraphrase...my words not Coronachs:

I would remind everyone that any gun control measure is not unconstitutional until some law and/or court ruling makes it so. Now, we might all very well feel that it should be deemed so...but until the aformentioned happens, it ain't so.

Now can we please all talk about guns??

WildgunsarefunradicalismisnotAlaska

[jrhines]

In the late 1980's I worked a multi-FLEO & Intell taskforce in the Southwest, trying to get a handle on a heavy-duty pipeline of nosecandy coming into the U.S. This was a serious operation, with a covert storefront, com-bank, surveillance with NVGs, pin registers on phone lines, all the chee-chees. One of the TF members was ATF. We were sitting around BS-ing one afternoon during a lull in the action, when the subject of porting shotguns came up. An officer from another FLE agency mentioned he had his duty scattergun ported. Well, we all wanted a look, so he brought it in and passed it around. The ATF dude, first thing, produced a tape measure and measured the barrel. Not as an afterthought, not an "Oh, bye the way, has that baby been chopped?", no, the first thing was to check for length, with a "We'll see about this!" attitude. No slack.
It just sorta' set the tone on who was never invited to go eat, who most always worked solo.

[Soap]

The ATF is a clear violation of principles that this country was founded upon.

J. Rhines,

Its pretty nice that they go strictly by the book when they're catching a violation, but not by the book when they actually enforce a law. :rolleyes: It is very sickening.

[Waitone]

Its pretty nice that they go strictly by the book when they're catching a violation, but not by the book when they actually enforce a law. It is always easier to shoot fish in a barrel than it is to fish in a pond. Its easier to harrass and intimidate for accounting procedures than it is to build a case against a real law breaker. That's the nature of the bureaucratic beast.

I've not run into the BATFE fortunately. I choose to believe the majority of agents are professional and that only a few are trouble.

[Chainsaw]

The Bad Attitude Towards Freedom people go against everything this country was ever founded upon. Created by a bunch of eletists who were afraid of Joe Bubba having too much firepower to counteract their ineptitude and corruption. Backed by those in this country that would hire a mercenary of some type to do their bidding for them.

The stupidity of the average person in this country never ceases to amaze me so beuracracies like this will continue to usurp freedoms like snow melting off your roof, and suddenly it is all melted.

YOU ONLY HAVE THE FREEDOMS YOUR ARE WILLING TO DEFEND AND FIGHT FOR.------------Chainsaw

[labgrade]

"I would remind everyone that the BATF isn't illegal or unconstitutional until some law and/or court ruling makes it so. Now, we might all very well feel that it should be deemed so...but until the aformentioned happens, it ain't so.

This is a small, yet major distinction."

You are, of course, correct, Mike.

Biggy we have to deal with is SCOTUS will only see a certain amount of cases in any given year, & if anyone thinks SCOTUS is non-political, they're smokin' better stuff than I could ever get (if I chose to do so).

SCOTUS WILL NOT address the second, per se until they are all appointed by a constitutionally elected senate, be confirmed & seated.

In the meaantime, we must eat every BS legeslative "effort" as being "constitutional" till ruled otherwise. I'm certain you know how the game is played.

"Unconstitutional" are those laws finally adjudicated as being so. Those that aren't - stand. & so it goes. We have legislators who will pass anything they can get their hands on to further their agenda, & unless ruled otherwise, it stands as law.

BS! & no thank you, Sir.

The system has been bastardized by its inherent swamping of its own system - & they very well know it.

Illegitimate law will stand as "constitutional" merely by the fact that they overwelm their own system.

Out of control, I say.

[Wildalaska]

SCOTUS WILL NOT address the second, per se until they are all appointed by a constitutionally elected senate, be confirmed & seated.

Tinfoil hat time...are you contending that the Senate is not constituionally elected?

WildcurioserandcurioserAlaska

[labgrade]

"Tinfoil hat time...are you contending that the Senate is not constituionally elected?"

du accord, WA, but of course you know what I meant.

Of course they are constitutionally appointed (not elected - & of course, you knew that,) but the remainder of my comments remain unviolate, I'd think.

Our senate sucks & will use any ploy to specifically not appoint any who would actually uphold the constitution - nor have any been appointed who would for, I'd daresay close to 100 years - with notable excetions - here 'n there.

Without the "support" of SCOTUS, the constitution/BOR is history merely because they will either not view a challenge, or rule against it.

Please do dispute this fact.

(As a quick study, the 10 BORs say exactly what they say - nothing more, & certainly nothing less. That some of your ilk are well-willing to allow any infringnement allowing "due-process," is discusting.)

The whole system has been totally bastardized, over-whlemed trough legislation & a willing "unableness to adress the issues."

I do love you, WA. You are the consumate one who'd tout our constitution, our laws, & system while selling us out & down the river.

You are either very astute or totally clueless.

[Wildalaska]

du accord, WA, but of course you know what I meant.

No I know what you wrote? You did not mean it? You are backtracking now? Mistake? Want me to repeat what you wrote?

Our senate sucks & will use any ploy to specifically not appoint any who would actually uphold the constitution - nor have any been appointed who would for, I'd daresay close to 100 years - with notable excetions - here 'n there.

How about some names? Who has not upheld the constituion?Who has? What specific court rulings are you referring to? Or are you just babbling your nonsense..again...

Without the "support" of SCOTUS, the constitution/BOR is history merely because they will either not view a challenge, or rule against it.

Want to translate that into English?

(As a quick study, the 10 BORs say exactly what they say - nothing more, & certainly nothing less. That some of your ilk are well-willing to allow any infringnement allowing "due-process," is discusting.)

Who are my ilk? Thoise who have studied the law and understand what it is (and can put a coherent sentence together) or those like yourself...who decide what something means without the slightest understanding of the law.....and,........people who support due process are disgusting???? Ah yes, lets just shoot all those who old Labgrade feels are treasonous eh?

You are either very astute or totally clueless.

But at least you recognize I am not ignorant:D

[labgrade]

Seriously, WA. Show me an senate body who would actually attempt to hold the BOR/constitution to its inception. The onus is on you.

Nor will they allow any who will uphold the constitution/BORs as the absolute rule of law.

Again, the onus is on you.

A SCOTUS decision, based upon who will be appointed, no?

Again.

Your ilk are those who will allow us to further disolve into a "future study" of what we/they'd want us to believe we hold dear - the premises of what the constitutiuon/BORs actually once meant.

Those premises initially written by those "long ago dead-white guys" are very sadly lacking in what any decisssion SCOTCUS may decide.

& that determines what is our current law/"what is constitutional."

That you lack a flavor to understand this basic premise is telling.

Alas for our future.

[Wildalaska]

Show me an senate body who would actually attempt to hold the BOR/constitution to its inception

That sentence makes no sense.

Nor will they allow any who will uphold the constitution/BORs as the absolute rule of law.

If you mean ( I guess I have to try to figure out what you say) that the Senate will not confirm any judges who will uphold the constitution I challenge you to support that statement with facts...the "onus" is on you as you are the proponent of such balderdash....

A SCOTUS decision, based upon who will be appointed, no?

That sentence is totally un-understandable.

Your ilk are those who will allow us to further disolve into a "future study" of what we/they'd want us to believe we hold dear - the premises of what the constitutiuon/BORs actually once meant.

Huh??????

Those premises initially written by those "long ago dead-white guys" are very sadly lacking in what any decisssion SCOTCUS may decide.


Huh???? Huh???? What are you trying to say...speak English...please......

That you lack a flavor to understand this basic premise is telling.

WADR, that you lack the ability to write a coherent sentence is telling...

[Leatherneck]

Whew! I thought I was growing stupid, just trying to follow along. :confused:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Ian]

WA - The point being made is that no governing body has been or will ever be content to stay within any bounds placed on it. In our case, it is because the Supreme Court is appointed by some of the very people it is charged with limiting (the Senate).

The Supreme Court's decisions on important matters are based on political expediency and what they feel they can get away with. Look at the decisions written by John Marshall, or the decisions about slavery. Any time the issue gives the Court an opportunity to give more power to the Feds, ideals go right out the window.

[Erik]

Our system of checks and balances is arguably one of the Founders' most memorable legacies.

So, the fact that the President nominates judges, which the Congress confirms, who have the power to interpret the laws enacted by said Congress and said President is a good thing.

No?

[Wildalaska]

The point being made is that no governing body has been or will ever be content to stay within any bounds placed on it. In our case, it is because the Supreme Court is appointed by some of the very people it is charged with limiting (the Senate).The Supreme Court's decisions on important matters are based on political expediency and what they feel they can get away with. Look at the decisions written by John Marshall, or the decisions about slavery. Any time the issue gives the Court an opportunity to give more power to the Feds, ideals go right out the window.

Thanks Ian...at last coherenc e...

Now would you care to cite me some Supreme Court cases in support of your assertions?

WildespeciallyinterestedinpoliticalexpediencycasesAlaska

[Ian]

Certainly.

Marbury vs Madison (1803): The Court dismisses a case on the abuse of political power, claiming no jurisdiction. As a side note, it declares itself to have sole power to judge the constitutionality of laws.

Martin vs Hunter's Lessee (1816): The Court rules that when state laws and federal treaties conflict, state laws must in all cases yield.

McCulloch vs Maryland (1819): The Court rules unanimously that the Constitution allows the creation of a National Bank, saying that "necessary and proper" means 'convenient'. Ironically, the Court denies Maryland the power to tax Federal land within its borders, because such power in Maryland's hands would allow it to destroy the Bank ("the power to tax involves the power to destroy").

Gibbons vs Ogden (1824): The Court defines "interstate commerce" from Article I Section 8 of the Constitution such that "commerce includes every species of commercial intercourse."

Cooley vs Board of Port Wardens (1851): The Court rules that the federal government has the exclusive power to regulate anything which "requires uniform regulation throughout the nation" (the necessity of such uniformity is decided by the federal government, of course). Furthermore, the Court rules that furthermore, states may not regulate anything already regulated by the feds, necessity issue aside (goodbye, 10th Amendment).

Dred Scott vs Sanford (1857): In a decision that can be described only as "disgusting," the Court (with a majority of Southerners) twists laws beyond recognition to uphold slavery. Of particular note is Chief Justice Taney's assertion that ending slavery violates the 5th Amendment by depriving slaveholders of their "property" without due process. :barf:

Mississippi vs Johnson (1867): The Court rules that states cannot issue injunctions against the President.

Ex Parte McCardle (1869): The Reconstruction Acts include provisions forbidding the publication of sentiments hostile to the military governments created in the South. When a Mississippi editor is arrested for such an act, the Constitutional violation is too blatant for even the Supreme Court to ignore. So after the editor appeals his conviction to the Supreme Court, Congress quickly repeales the statute giving the Court appellate jurisdiction on the issue. The Court gladly accepts this easy "out," and dismisses the case (despite the fact the appeal proceedings are already in process).

Plessy vs Ferguson (1890): The Court rules that state-enforced racial segregation is legal.

I would include some more recent cases, but my class on Constitutional Law hasn't gotten to them yet. However, cases like Emerson's and US vs Haney make it pretty clear that the Court is unwilling to uphold the Second Amendment, and some recent cases have upheld the legality of the PATRIOT act (I don't know any specifics on those).

[Wildalaska]

I would include some more recent cases, but my class on Constitutional Law hasn't gotten to them yet.

Well what I am looking for is not just the bald citiation of authorities, but how those case support your assertions that the Sup Ct rules based on poltcal expediency...Remeber political expediency is your term...

Please ensure that your response takes into account the authorites cited in the decisions.....also, please advise which of the cases you cite are still good law, or have been modified....

In making your analysis, also take into account the sociological and cultural milieau at the time of the decision. Thus for example, please discuss, in the context of Dred Scott, the prevailing sociological or cultural view of Africans and slavery contrasting or analyzing whethe cases like Roe vs Wade wouyld have been decided the same way at that time......

Life is not bllck and white...this is good practice for you...

WildmaygobacktoteachinglawAlaska

[Justin Moore]

In the late 1980's I worked a multi-FLEO & Intell taskforce in the Southwest, trying to get a handle on a heavy-duty pipeline of nosecandy coming into the U.S. This was a serious operation, with a covert storefront, com-bank, surveillance with NVGs, pin registers on phone lines, all the chee-chees.

I'm just curious, but how many CIA guys did you bag on the op? ;)

Concerning the Bureau of Applied Tyranny and Fraud, I'm sure there were a few nice and amicable SS officers too. Just following orders....

Well what I am looking for is not just the bald citiation of authorities, but how those case support your assertions that the Sup Ct rules based on poltcal expediency...Remeber political expediency is your term...

As if its not obvious from Ian's post?

:banghead:

[Jim March]

I would add one MAJOR one to Ian's recitation, a case that in my opinion is the single worst USSC case in the entire history of the court:

US v. Cruikshank, 1876.

Here's what the US Congressional official history page has to say:

------------------
The Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The case grew out of a brutal massacre of blacks in the little Louisiana town of Colfax.

In Colfax whites burned the court house and murdered an unknown number of blacks. After the U.S. Army restored order, a federal grand jury indicted 72 white men. The United States Attorney brought nine to trial and won a conviction against William Cruikshank and two others.

Normally the federal government does not prosecute persons charged with murder. Control of ordinary crime has traditionally been the job of the states. In this case the U.S. Attorney used the 1870 Enforcement Act. This law makes it a crime for two or more persons to band together with intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen.

The Supreme Court threw out the convictions of Cruikshank and his cohorts. As it had in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court acted to protect states' power. "Every republican government," Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote, "is in duty bound to protect all its citizens." He then added, "That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there."

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/history/19th.asp
------------------

Starting in 1866 and culminating with the 14th Amendment of 1868, the Northern Republican legislature attempted to accomplish everything that the later "Civil Rights Movement" of the 1950's/60's finally accomplished.

Cruikshank put an end to that early effort. Cruikshank said specifically that state agents could violate a person's 1st, 2nd and 15th (voting) amendment rights or any other piece of the Bill Of Rights and there wasn't squat the Feds could do!

The later Plessy vs Ferguson (1890) was just the last straw, Cruikshank was the death blow: it allowed Southern (and then in rapid order NORTHERN) states, state agents and private citizens to trample civil rights en mass and left the Feds powerless to intervene.

The main deliberate fraud in Cruikshank was that the court pretended not to know what "privileges and immunities of US citizenship" (in the 14th Amendment) were. This was a cruel lie; the 14th Amendment had been written to overturn Dred Scott which used the phrase 31 times; the court had exhaustively defined the term as "the individual protections in the Bill Of Rights, specifically *including* the 2nd Amendment, and then some".

In the 20th Century, the USSC realized Cruikshank went too far, and came up with a doctrine of "selective incorporation" in which they assigned pieces of the BoR as limits on state powers, item by item, as they determined each bit to be "important". Naturally, they've not done so with the RKBA yet :rolleyes:.

READ CRUIKSHANK:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/92/542.html

You can't get the full horror of it until you do.

The REAL horror is that this is STILL CURRENT CASE LAW! It's still being cited as authority for the idea that "the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states" :eek:. The last time the 9th Circuit ruled firmly on the RKBA, they directly cited *Cruikshank*!!!

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fresno_club_v_vandecamp.txt

Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club vs. Van De Kamp in the *liberal* 9th Circuit, 1992, cited that racist piece of crap (Cruikshank) thusly:

----------------------
The plaintiffs also challenge the AWCA [ed: assault weapon" ban] as a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argue that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second such that it limits the actions of states in addition to those of Congress, and that the right to bear arms exists to protect the individual as well as to assist in the common defense through the use of a well-regulated militia.

The Supreme Court, however, has held that the Second Amendment constrains only the actions of Congress, not the states. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876) ("The second amendment declares that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed; but this ... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government. . . . "); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-65, 6 S.Ct. 580, 583-84, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) (same). We are therefore foreclosed from considering these arguments.

[Ed. note: Presser only re-hashed Cruikshank without saying much new on the subject. It's common to see courts cite Presser instead of Cruikshank because Presser isn't as obviously racist as Cruikshank; this is what happened in the Morton Grove (IL) case supporting a city ban on all handguns at the appellate court level.]
----------------------

:what:

Anyways. What we have here is a racist case from WAY back that hasn't been repudiated right down to the present, because it's politically useful.

:barf:

[citizen]

:what:

[Henry Bowman]

This thread, while legally facinating, is way off of the original topic.

rock jock, you state: "UC isn't worth the paper its printed on." Care to elaborate? As you might guess from my handle, I disagree.

[Jim March]

Ah ya, did I forget to mention that the California Attorney General wrote an "official position paper on the 2nd Amendment" that was based on Cruikshank?

Care to guess what year that was?







































2002

:barf:

Right here:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/2amend.htm

It doesn't *cite* Cruikshank, that'd be too obvious even from "Mr. Bill" Lockyer. No, it cites Fresno Rifle, and you've seen what that's all about.

Remarkably, it DOES cite a horrific case called In Re Ramirez, a 1924 California Supreme Court case that was overturned in 1972 by a California *Appellate* court.

Now wait...how can THAT happen?

Easy. It's damn near automatic, when the older higher court case is clearly, you guessed it, RACIST. I don't have the text of the 1924 case (Ramirez) online (nobody does) but you can see what the appellate court said in '72 (Rappard) here:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/rappard.txt

I think I'm the only source on the Internet for this crucial case which declared California's 1923 gun control system (that included the CCW system!) you guessed it...RACIST.

(Kudos to Clayton Cramer for finding Rappard, alerting me to it, and hauling it out of Lexis/Nexis :D.)

[buzz_knox]

Well what I am looking for is not just the bald citiation of authorities, but how those case support your assertions that the Sup Ct rules based on poltcal expediency...Remeber political expediency is your term...

I don't have the cites at hand, but the development of the New Deal in the 1930s is a prime example. FDR was trying to push through his agenda using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Supremes routinely struck down the laws as exceeding the scope of the clause. So, FDR goes to Congress and tries to have the panel expanded from 9 to 12. Selecting an additional 3 would have given him an instant majority. While the effort was defeated, the Supremes suddenly began finding laws previously declared unconstitutional as fully consistent with the Constitution when the issues came before them again.

[labgrade]

"WildmaygobacktoteachinglawAlaska"

You taught law!?

Passing grade must have been rose-colored glasses. :rolleyes:

Only thing I said was that any Senate confirmation of any SCOTUS-folk will be based on their (Senate majoritys') "feel" on how the appointee may rule. If they don't "feel" that they like the way he/she may rule, it'll likely be a goodly fight for confirmation. Same-same goes for fed-level district courts as well.

"Legal" is decided by jurisprudence, after legislation.

Too many examples which violate ours rights, per the constitution, to mention.

That a law isn't struck down doesn't necessarily make it constitutional - merely "legal." There's a huge difference & that some cannot (or will not) understand the distinction is telling.

(gratuitous personal attack follows:) WA, you Sir are a real card.

(hopefully, the sentence structure wasn't too hard to follow this go 'round)

I don't know who is worse - the anti, or our "own side" who is totally fuzzy with the police state.

[Wildalaska]

Passing grade must have been rose-colored glasses.

No actually passing grade was in part based on ability to put a coherent sentence together. You mostly flunk:D

Only thing I said was that any Senate confirmation of any SCOTUS-folk will be based on their (Senate majoritys') "feel" on how the appointee may rule. If they don't "feel" that they like the way he/she may rule, it'll likely be a goodly fight for confirmation. Same-same goes for fed-level district courts as well.

Well you never said that, at least in an understandable way, and your premise is almost wholly correct. Even those who NOMINATE the Judges do so from a political point of view. However District level Judges are usually picked/confirmed/appointed based in part on political influence in the local area that is traded off as favours in the Senate. For example, if there is a vacancy in Alaska, there are a pool of candidates that are evaluated, one is slected, then for confirmation it is usually easy a s a favour to our senators. The local Judges usually more broadly represent the political leanings of the local Senators.


That a law isn't struck down doesn't necessarily make it constitutional - merely "legal." There's a huge difference & that some cannot (or will not) understand the distinction is telling.

That is only a theoretical distinction that quite frankly is irrelvant. Only the Courts decide what is constituional. Until they do we are bounbd, as good citizens to follow the law. To do otherwise makes us Baaathists.

If you consider your country a "police stae" I assume that you are not well traveled.

Hopefully I can address Cruikshank tonight...let me start by saying that if you analyze a Sup Crt case using a political view, you can find political agendas in the majority. If you analyze from a strictly legal view, your results may be differnt. Also the use of a case to support a political agenda does not mean that the case itslef was decided based on political considerations. Finally, if you want to discuss politically motivated cases with a long background of jurisprudence (rather than early cases which have a more common law/KB basis) take a look at the internment cases of WW2 and the very recent Florida election case

WildnowwearehavinfunAlaska

[Jim March]

Cruikshank was the USSC's way of declaring the KKK and overt racism all the way up to murder, an endangered species. I consider it the single most vile USSC case ever, surpassing even Dred Scott which was morally horrendous but legally correct for it's time (1856).

*Cruikshank* was *not* legally correct.

John Bingham, primary author of the 14th Amendment, said in speeches as far back as 1866 that he wanted to overturn Dred Scott's "racism is OK in US law" decision by turning it's own language (specifically "privileges and immunities") back on itself.

They *decided* to misunderstand what "privileges and immunities" meant :mad:.

AND IT'S STILL GOING ON.

It ain't just me saying all this. Liberal Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar's 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights" re-discovered what professor Stephen Halbrook had realized about the P&I clause in 1984. More on Amar's thinking:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/originalism.html

One of Amar's law journal articles:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html (1992, some of his early work in the field and not fully fleshed out)

More interesting Amar stuff:

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1999Another.pdf

Links to some of Halbrook's online material can be found here:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/practicalrace.html

[rock jock]

Henry,

What's to elaborate on? I thought it was a poorly written book. It meanders aimlessly in many places, it is entirely too long for the story, many of the circumstances are unrealistic, it is gratuitously lurid. It is just not a very good book.

[labgrade]

Whatever, WA.

Your whole take on the RKBA legalities is that some entity may have some control over what we may, or may not do.

The constituton/BOR already decided what is allowed regards constitutional authority over what may be regulated regards firearms.

"No actually passing grade was in part based on ability to put a coherent sentence together. You mostly flunk"

My sentence structure is how I will - as I will. I'd assume that you are also an English major, besides being a legal scholar?

:barf:

(& you work in a gun shop?)

Seems that many a folk can follow my sentence structure enough to at least allow conversation. Attacking "structure" merely distracts from the debate. Interesting enough that you use the "leftist debating technique" by attacking the delivery system rather than the message itself .... very telling, Sir.

But, let's just cut to the chase, shall we.

The second says we have the right to keep and bear arms.

Period.

Can we agree on that?

Any "discusson" that says we can't is in violation.

BATF atempts to violate this with felony-raps , saying we can't.

BTW, I've received 20+ PM/e-mails saying that you, WA, are not our friend & haven't a clue ..... FWIW

[Justin Moore]

To do otherwise makes us Baaathists

IMHO, that was a little over the top ;)

[beckrodgers]

Good topic and responses,We still ask who signed this bunch into law, created them etc? 1968 or so along with some of the uther agencies we are thinking it is the so called conservatives.

[Wildalaska]

Your whole take on the RKBA legalities is that some entity may have some control over what we may, or may not do.

No sorry the point is that rights are not absolute...hornbook law...accepted by the majority of legal scholars, judges and citizens. Deal with it.

Interesting enough that you use the "leftist debating technique" by attacking the delivery system rather than the message itself .... very telling, Sir.

And this coming from a fellow who inserts the "puky" graemlin, and usess terms like "a**hole". BTW, my job is not to interpret what you say, its your job to make yourself clear.

The second says we have the right to keep and bear arms.

Well thats not exactly what it says, but for purposes of this discussion I suppose it will do.


Any "discusson" that says we can't is in violation.

What part of American Jurisprudence dont you understand.? Lets try again. Until a Court says a law is unconstitutional, it is the law. You dont like it, thats too bad. Go challenge it, like that fellow in California did. He has the courage of his convictions, unlike those who just call other people names.

[Ian]

WildAlaska - There is a difference between fact and legality. If Congress were to pass a law saying that US citizens were forbidden to criticize the government, it would be unconstitutional both before and after the Supreme Court made a decision about it. It might be enforceable law before it got to the Court, but would still be unconstitutional.

I am not particularly concerned with the Supreme Court's decisions about laws, though. I am an intelligent human being, and I can see if laws are proper or not, and I obey or disobey them based on my own judgement, not some appointed Court's.

[Wildalaska]

There is a difference between fact and legality. If Congress were to pass a law saying that US citizens were forbidden to criticize the government, it would be unconstitutional both before and after the Supreme Court made a decision about it. It might be enforceable law before it got to the Court, but would still be unconstitutional.

Correct..however, one is bound to obey the law whil it is still enforceable..or at least, seek redress in court by violating the law (ie test it)..

On the otherhand, a lawlike your example who probaly end up enjoined pending appeal as unconstituional; on its face....

I am not particularly concerned with the Supreme Court's decisions about laws, though. I am an intelligent human being, and I can see if laws are proper or not, and I obey or disobey them based on my own judgement, not some appointed Court's.

Idealistically that would be perfect..in practice...well NAMBLA beleives that paedophilia laws are morally wrong..so shall we give them the same benefit of the doubt...the problem with the utopian analisis is found in that type of situation...who defines morality or propriety?


WildgooddebateAlaska

[Jim March]

"That guy" in California made two mistakes:

1) You sue as the plaintiff in civil court, versus deliberately being the defendant in criminal court. That way, you screw it up, you're only out your legal fees and you go figure out what went wrong and try again.

2) The guy tried to go straight to home plate instead of first base, then second, then third, then home. Basically, he tried to go too far too fast. There are many lesser RKBA violations that should be challenged first...in my opinion, the discretionary CCW system first of all.

-------------

Wildalaska: you haven't commented on Cruikshank as a horrific indictment on the courts, especially considering it's still being cited as authority.

[Wildalaska]

Well to start off with a Cruikshank anaylsis, lets look at this language:

'The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States. "

Horrific as the result of Cruikshank might be (and I analyze Cruikshank in entirely different terms than others as to what it actually holds) are you contending this language
is anything other than a correct recitition of the 2A? If not, how do you reconcile the 2nd and the 10th? And why pray tell in light of this view of the 2nd A, do the vasrious statesd have such language in their particular constituion....

WildcuriousAlaska

[Wildalaska]

By the way can you guess what Constitutional language is missing from NJ's constitution?

Ever read NY's? How about Md: "That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government. "

Contrast Alaska:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. "

Hmm...

Vermont...

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--"

Now why is this l;anguage even necessary if the 2nd is a stricture on the states.....

[Jim March]

Wildalaska:

The opening paragraph of the 14th Amendment, effective in 1868, states:

-----
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-----

Now, in the Cruikshank case, *state agents* did pretty much ALL of the things the 14th Amendment said they specifically couldn't do.

Jeez, ignore the actual "privileges and immunities" bit; focus on:

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Are you of the opinion that this did NOT happen in the incident which the Cruikshank charges are based on? Blacks were stripped of their legally owned property (guns), then attacked them specifically because of their race, in retaliation for their excercising their 1st and 15th Amendment rights.

The Cruikshank court just flat-out didn't *like* the 14th Amendment and it's related set of Federal laws putting teeth in it and deriving their authority from the 14th, so the Cruikshank court utterly ignored it's practical effect to protect rights.

It's not like they didn't know about it. As the court said:

-----
The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. As was said by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, it secures 'the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice.' These counts in the indictment do not call for the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this provision in the amendment.
-----

Well lesse...if it "prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", but the Feds can't stop 'em from doing so, WHO THE HELL CAN?

Put another way: according to this court, the 14th Amendment had NO PRACTICAL EFFECT; it changes absolutely *nothing* about how people can be treated, it was apparantly a bunch of meaningless babble, an excercise in political philosophy or somedamnthing.

Do you seriously want to try and defend this crap?

[labgrade]

"Correct..however, one is bound to obey the law whil it is still enforceable..or at least, seek redress in court by violating the law (ie test it).."]/I]

Never! & "enforecabe" is a key point, no?

Why would I ever subject myself to a few "with good hair?" These few aren't any smarter than you, or me, likely haven't even read the consitution & have no clue other than to further their own agenda & get re-elected. & you/me/us are suppposed to just cow-tow to [I]anything whatsoever that they decide is now law?

C'mon! We already have every law that could possibly be written to save all of us from ourselves & others, & still these yahoos are out there to further promote "public safety" .....

& "Until a Court says a law is unconstitutional, it is the law. "

Yup. It's law, but those of us that think won't pay any attention to their stupidity in the least & will "disobey," perhaps frantically & that brings up the discussion about the "legalities" of the BATF. I submit that their entire being is illegal on its face. That SCOTUS hasn't the cajones to rule in favor of one principle this country was founded on & lends credence to my discussion point.

Some group of yahoos get together & passed a law that says it's illegal to breathe, you gonna pay attention? Oops! may get a ticket!?

C'mon, WA.

Likely we're on the same side, but you're looking at it from a very different perspective & I've been abrasive in my premise defense. Maybe start over, huh?

But, you could be a bit more nice in your own "attacks" as well. BTW, nice enough that you had the mods called to help me address my previous comment about you being an *******. Always nice to have friendly comment from the mods delineating commentary prose.

Your premise is that if some electeds pass any law (whatsoever), we must obey & if they have to imprison us, or kill us, to enforce
said law is A-OK.

Mine is contrary. They never had the "right," nor wherwithall to ever do it in the first place.

[/random musings]

[Ian]

WildAlaska - Laws like I used as an example have been passed before (Sedition Act, Reconstruction Acts), and they aren't always challanged, much less struck down.

As for civil disobediance...it's worked for people a heck of a lot of people more important than I. What would happen if everyone ignored the laws they didn't like? Anarchy, I suppose. I'm not too concerned with what everyone else does...but I AM concerned about the things the government does to me. I know they're wrong, and I reserve the right to ignore that government when it exceeds its authority. I am not bound by a responsibility to spend decades and tens of thousands of dollars fighting a hopeless battle to repeal a law that is a gross violation of the Constitution. It was the government's responsibility to not pass such laws in the first place.

...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... Note that there's no mention of any court here. The Supreme Court was not meant to be the ultimate judge of government - you and I were.

[Wildalaska]

Hi jim


The first set in any Cruikshank analysis is asking what was the criminal act...private action or state action?


Were in fact tha acts complained of done by private citizens...

[Wildalaska]

As for civil disobediance...it's worked for people a heck of a lot of people more important than I. What would happen if everyone ignored the laws they didn't like? Anarchy, I suppose. I'm not too concerned with what everyone else does...but I AM concerned about the things the government does to me. I

Your statement is a logical fallacy...if everyone ignores the laws=anarchy.....but I can ignore the law and that is OK?

[Ian]

Where's the fallacy? I don't recall saying that anarchy was a bad thing...

[alan]

A guy I know is an ATF supervisor. We have argued or discussed things a fair amount, and he once observed as follows. He said that if his agency weren't involved with firearms enforcement, that 98% of the people screaming at/about them likely wouldn't either know or care that they existed.

His next comment was as follows. While observing that his agency did not make the law, I submit that this is arguable, at least to an extent, he noted that they unfortunately did display a tendency to "shoot themselves in the foot".

Make of that, what you will.

[Jim March]

Wildalaska:

Mr. Cruikshank, the lead defendant, was a cop - a state agent.

But second, remember the principle of "we ARE the government". Once it became possible for the Feds to restrict civil rights violations against states, it's not unthinkable at all that they could limit civil rights violations by state citizens against other state citizens, either within a state or across state lines.

Look at some of the language of the "enabling regulations" written to support the 14th:

--------------------
Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(Now known as 42 USC 1983 - the code numbers have been revised but the text hasn't changed.)
--------------------

This is from the same era as the 14th Amendment of 1868, enacted either shortly before or after the 14th's ratification, I forget which. It was crafted directly to support the 14th Amendment, and was in effect at the time Cruikshank was decided (1876).

Notice how it is NOT limited to government officials?

Today, there are Federal laws restricting businesses from hiring on the basis of race, or discriminating along racial lines in any other way. That happened without a new Constitutional Amendment...it was and is based on the 14th Amendment.

Granted, that may not have been the view in 1876, and that's mostly understandable. But the Cruikshank defendants included definate agents of the state of LA.

[labgrade]

Mr March is much more astute than I, but the whole crux is:

You, WA, have bought into the premise that the guv'mint is allowed to infringe on our rights by simply passing a(ny) law.

Oops!

They are bound by the constitution of the fed-guv & that of their own state.

These documents are "higher law" which specifically forbid the guv'mint from infringeing upon our rights. They are a delineating premise that limits guv'mints from ever doing what they are dong.

& everything they do, which is illegal on its face, must be brought to court to be found illegal, or it is law.

No court has the time/wherewithall to disssolve even 5% of the crap they make "legal."

No & sorry.

Just because some folk "with good hair" found themselves elected can make law doesn't mean it in any way is either consitutional, nor that I should immediately bow down to their whims.

Which brings us back to the BATF.

I may, or may not, have a piece of steel. It has a spring, a box to contain a quantity of rifle rounds,

It may, or may not have been, made on a certain date.

That I could be charged with a felony, soley because this same assembly was made 10 seconds later than my other legal object is utterly beyond my comprehension. ('course, i'm a simple man.)

But the BATF is there to make certain I will be punished to the full extent of the law = felony rap = 10-25 in prison/$1/4M fine.

If I have a device (unregistered with a $200 tax) that makes my gun quieter, so not to "abuse my neighbors' ears" ... I could be imprisoned for 10-25 & a $250K fine - for "being quiet." This while the EPA is regulating chain-saws or jack-hammers for the same "offense" = being too loud.

I can put every round on target from a scoped/bolt action to 1K yards, but if I have (as I did in the military) a full-auto "spray 'n ptay gun," without proper license, is illegal.

My shotgun will do a turkey quite well to 50 yards & it's easily within the limitations set by the guv'mint, but if it's 1/4" too short, I am a felon. (& I mean short in the overall length - barrel or stock size.

I am a felon.

I have a pretty nifty handgun. It's a single-shot/break action TC in a .30 cal wildcat, It's scoped & I've shot a witnessed .640", 3-shot group at 200 yards, But if I'd rifle stick a stock on it, I'm a felon = a short-barreled rifle.

Everything I have is legal, but if I changed just a simple part, to perhaps make it "better somehow," or just make it how I'd wish to make it, for myself, user-friendly, I'd be a felon.

A felon, & subject to a 10-20 years sentence dancing' w/Bubba + a $1/4M fine.

No intent to cause harm, no criminal activity, nothing - just mere possession of.

I would be guilty of possession of: "an illegal weapon."

That's what BATF does & what WA upholds as "rule of law."

I would be guilty of an "illegal weapon."

They would/will & actively do "recon-to find out who has" such nasties.

To make sure you & ours are safe forever.

& our bud, WildAlaska, has bougt into this scheme to further promote your safety - somehow through legtislation.

All I can say is thanks, WildAlaska for your dedication in promoting our safety & standing tall with the New Gestapo.

Yes, Sir! Standing tall with those who'd stuff us in cells for felony-raps is exactly what we want from our fellow-folk.

& when the hammer falls, hopefully you are one of the first to hang.

(hopefully politically correct enough to maintain & allow this post - certaintly wasn't a personal attack - just enough to divide the stupids from those that can still think)

[Wildalaska]

Where's the fallacy? I don't recall saying that anarchy was a bad thing...

Ok so what you are asaying is that anyhting goes? Felons should own guns, sex with minors is OK, drugs are fine, murder?

WildwheretodrawthelineAlaska

[Wildalaska]

Hi Jim:

Mr. Cruikshank, the lead defendant, was a cop - a state agent.

But was he acting as an agent of the state...see below...if he was not, then the prosecution fails.... (although there were other reasons in the decison why the prosecution failed)

Notice how it is NOT limited to government officials?

Sorry, but in order to have an action under 1983, you must have an act that occurs under colour of state law..ie a nexus beteween the wrong and an "official action"...this is purely a civil statute...although note the comparable criminal one...thus if I go stop a black guy from voting because I as a private citizen feel they shouldnt, I am not guilty of a 1983 violation....

Today, there are Federal laws restricting businesses from hiring on the basis of race, or discriminating along racial lines in any other way. That happened without a new Constitutional Amendment...it was and is based on the 14th Amendment.

Of course we are back to the incorporation of certain portions of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states...this has justified plenty of Federal interfernce in states rights....the same interference that is decried time and time again by the same folks who want to have the 2A incorporated (which it never has been)...

And thats the test...if the 2nd A is incorporated AND deemed an individual right then those states whose constituion lacks protection gain protection from gun control, to the extent that the specific gun control statute is deemed valid under a strict scrutiny standard...

And of course it is to the question of individual rights that Cruikshank is important. Yet even more so, Cruikshank supports the incorporation view....

Wildfollowingme?Alaska

[Wildalaska]

Yes, Sir! Standing tall with those who'd stuff us in cells for felony-raps is exactly what we want from our fellow-folk.& when the hammer falls, hopefully you are one of the first to hang.


Ah yes the brave man making his internet threats again. Sir you are a disgrace to this country, and this Board..

[Justin Moore]

C'mon! We already have every law that could possibly be written to save all of us from ourselves & others, & still these yahoos are out there to further promote "public safety" .....

A sad consequence of our move AWAY from being a Constitutional Republic, and towards a 'democracy'. The congresscreatures feel that the HAVE to pass more laws because that is what their constituents 'demand' from them. ;) And if the pesky old Constitution gets in the way, well so be it ;)

Yes, Sir! Standing tall with those who'd stuff us in cells for felony-raps is exactly what we want from our fellow-folk.& when the hammer falls, hopefully you are one of the first to hang.

I concur!

I guess my understanding of what 'inalienable' and 'shall not infringe' makes me a bad Amerikan along with labgrade. Good company to keep if you ask me.

WA,

So, exactly how much did you donate to Project Safe Neighboods this year? Hrm, I thought so ;) I would imagine that short of losing your bear hunting 'privlages' you will be content with whatever 'law' pertaining to firearms ownership is passed. After all, nobody NEEDS an evil looking black rifle. And besides its, 'for your safety' and 'for the children'.

Welp I'm done spewing my evil 'right wing' hate speech for now ;)

[Jim March]

WA:

I won't argue with you re: how 1983 has been interpreted. How it's worded is something else again :scrutiny:.

The history of Southern governmental racism speaks entirely for itself. It is the reason the 14th Amendment was crafted in the first place. When a LARGE group of Southern cops and citizens collectively sets out to violate civil rights, and then the state in question fails to prosecute, it's not unreasonable to assume the racist violence was either state-supported, state-organized or at a minimum state-permitted.

In any of the three cases, the Feds would be well served to prosecute. The entire thrust of the Cruikshank decision makes the 14th Amendment utterly useless.

Something else: the "privileges and immunities clause" of the 14th has NEVER been restored to the state it was in before being systematically dismantled in the Slaughter-House cases, Cruikshank and similar. "Selective incorporation" is derived from the "due process" clause, on the theory that when a state blocks somebody from the excercise of a "fundamental right", it violates their due process - and "fundamental right" is something the court "knows when it sees" and has slowly added rights piece at a time, starting with the 1st Amendment in the early 20th century.

But that doesn't make it correct for the court to have stolen the P&I clause from us in the first place, just because they've given approximately 7/8ths of it back to us in some other fashion!

They've yet to view the 2nd as a "fundamental right" :rolleyes:.

------------------------

It's not just P&I and Due Process that got yanked around by the courts. Look what the barsterds did to equal protection!

Williams vs. Mississippi, 1898: Mississippi set up a "discretionary permit system" for voting that disenfranchised all 180,000 black citizens of the entire state - and a tiny number of whites. The court ruled that because the language of the statute was racially neutral on it's face, and because it affected "some whites", it didn't violate equal protection. Think I'm kidding?

Read the sumbich: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/170/213.html

RKBA connection: Mississippi had earlier put in a discretionary GUN permit system for distinctly racist purposes, and only later applied the same concept to voting rights.

Then there's Plessy v. Fergusen from the same period supporting "separate but equal" :barf:. Between that and Williams, they killed off equal protection as effectively as they trashed the P&I and everydamnthing else in the 14th.

Fine. Then they brought equal protection back from the grave in Brown v. Board of Education 1954 and subsequent cases. Yippee.

'Cept the slimeballs still ain't fixed it completely.

Here's the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Fine. So can you please explain to me why it is that if the government discriminates against me because of my lack of extreme wealth or connections, they can excuse it if they have a "rational basis" for the discrimination, but if they discriminate on the basis of race they must face a much harsher "strict scrutiny" test?

Put another way, two years ago I was able to prove that my sheriff in Contra Costa County Calif was discriminating on the basis of wealth, connections AND race in his handling of permits. But I couldn't even *discuss* one entire class of discrimination, the racial issues, because of my skin condition.

Yup. "Advanced hyper-honkie-ism" :rolleyes:.

Had I been black or Latino, I'd have *owned* his punk butt. As it was, I was tossed outta Fed court on my butt...and yes, this is what my lawyer explained to me.

What the court SHOULD have realized was that if the creep was discriminating racially, it was a dead certainty he was screwing people in other ways. But that whole argument was blocked because of my race.

Compare and contrast that with the real 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The terms "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis" have NO BASIS IN THE LAW. They are concepts created entirely by the Supreme Court to allow, nay, FOSTER reverse discrimination.

Making a mockery of the original text of the 14th.

Let me be blunt: in 1868, the legislature deliberately overturned the USSC by passing a new amendment, the 14th. Between 1872 and 1900, the court, pissed because they'd been overturned, flat-out trashed the 14th in it's entirety. In the 20th century, they realized they'd screwed up in too obvious a fashion and rebuilt it - but they re-built it in ways that would horrify John Bingham and the rest of the 14th's framers and supporters.

[Wildalaska]

Jim...let me note that its truly a pleasure to duscuss this with you...

The history of Southern governmental racism speaks entirely for itself. It is the reason the 14th Amendment was crafted in the first place. When a LARGE group of Southern cops and citizens collectively sets out to violate civil rights, and then the state in question fails to prosecute, it's not unreasonable to assume the racist violence was either state-supported, state-organized or at a minimum state-permitted.

And 1983 was crafted for exactly that reason.,..to stop civil rights violationsunder color of state law...

In any of the three cases, the Feds would be well served to prosecute. The entire thrust of the Cruikshank decision makes the 14th Amendment utterly useless.

No, cited as it may be, Cruikshank is no longer "good law". Further, are you contending that it is good policy, on a constitutional level, to allow the Feds to prosecute crimes by ordinary citizens...ie do you agree with federal prosecutions of civil rights violations directed against individual actions?


They've yet to view the 2nd as a "fundamental right

On the contrary, I think that at least in dicta, it has so been recognized. It just has not been applied to the states via selective incorporation.

It's not just P&I and Due Process that got yanked around by the courts. Look what the barsterds did to equal protection!

Are you complaining that the Courts have intepreted the constitution at different time periods based on prevailing socio-political mores? Remember the same founding fathers that created the second amendment were slave owners. Isnt it a good feature of our system that legal "errors" can be corrected based on evolviong standards? Hasnt British jurisprudence also so evolved?

Now let me add here that I am not particularly familair with your particular California case so cannot comment as to why your judge ruled the way he did.. On the other hand I must disagree that rational basis and strict scrutiny are "baseless"...they are not legal concepts derived from the law, but analytical tests to ascertain whether fundamental rights are violated. In a practical sense, assuming arguendo that the SC rules the 2a is an individual right AND is applicable to the states, what test do you propose to determine whehter a particular "gun control" (a generic phrase) law is violative of that right?

BTW, I am still curious abourt the RKBA or lack thereof in Stae constituions and its relationship to a federal right..

WildyourturnAlaska

[Wildalaska]

oops double post

[Wildalaska]

So, exactly how much did you donate to Project Safe Neighboods this year? Hrm, I thought so I would imagine that short of losing your bear hunting 'privlages' you will be content with whatever 'law' pertaining to firearms ownership is passed. After all, nobody NEEDS an evil looking black rifle. And besides its, 'for your safety' and 'for the children'

O and where did I say that?

O, I see you concur with an earlier threatening poster, another one of those "hanging" guys whose ready to find the slightest excuse to do violence to someone who doesnt agree with you.

Ive got your post saved too.

Wild:scrutiny: Alaska

[Justin Moore]

O and where did I say that?

Okay, what exactly IS your position on the 2nd Amendment? Its somewhat hard to tell because you 'seem' to be saying that anyone that questions what currently consitutes the relevant laws is bound to obey them no matter how ridiculous they might be. Can I perhaps assume that you think at least some of the current laws are just as absurd as I do? If so, which ones would those be? I am very curious. Lets take Safe Neighborhoods as an example. Another huge abuse of the 10th Amendment.

As far as me threating you, give me a break. I can only imagine if were to tell my friends that some 'nasty' person 'threatened' me on the internet today. They would probably just laugh, and rightfully so. In point of fact, I've never been involved in a violent altercation in my life, and hope I never have to be involved in one. You should take it for what is, forceful rhetoric.

So, let me ask you, what does the 2nd Amendment mean to YOU? My guess is that you don't see it as an absolute, but as something that can be 'reasonably regulated'. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think its hard to argue that the majority of firearms laws in the USA consitute nothing more than a 'malum prohibitum':

http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/malum_prohibitum.htm

Malum Prohibitum
An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

In other words its illegal because we say it is, you don't 'need' it, and it hurts 'the children'.

[Justin Moore]

No court has the time/wherewithall to disssolve even 5% of the crap they make "legal."

A few courageous Congressman actually tried to address this particular issue, by proposing legislation that would require the Congress to CITE their Constitutional authority for any new proposed legislation. Now, why exactly did they even feel the need to do this? Is it perhaps because they (as many others) know full well that unconstitutional laws are being passed all the time, and that the courts do little (whether because of TIME OR political considerations) to address these matters. And meanwhile, the public gets the shaft. I mean, wouldn't it be easier and better for EVERYONE to not pass these laws in the first place?

Now, one would think, wouldn't such a bill get UNIVERSAL support in the Congress? One would THINK so. I mean, why would you NOT support such a law? Is it that hard to make law without violating people's rights? Is it that hard to follow the Enumerated Powers?

http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=1400181

Restore Enumerated Powers
Bill # H.R.384

Original Sponsor:
John Shadegg (R-AZ 3rd)

Cosponsor Total: 1
(last sponsor added )
__1 Republicans


About This Legislation:

The Constitution of the United States is not a statement of principles or a mere expression of lofty ideals or political philosophy. It is black-letter law. Its provisions are fully operative, like any federal statute. Every action of the federal government must legally conform to constitutional rules. Every member of Congress swears to uphold the Constitution; meaning he or she swears to uphold the law.

Yet members of Congress rarely follow the Constitution. In fact, members of Congress routinely ignore or blatantly violate its strictures. As a result, most federal laws have no constitutional authority. In other words, most so-called federal laws are unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal. Respect for the constitutional rule of law must be restored.

H.R. 384 requires all proposed federal legislation to state the underlying constitutional authority for the measure. H.R. 384 forces Washington politicians to address the fundamental question they have ignored for so long: Is the legislation that we are considering allowed under the Constitution? The answer is generally NO because the Constitution limits government to a few specifically enumerated functions. Under H.R. 384, members of Congress must either abandon constitutional proposals or risk scrutiny when phony "commerce clause" or "general welfare clause" justifications are used. H.R. 384 ultimately serves liberty by exposing the illegality of most federal laws.

One could conclude from the lack of support for this bill, that the majority of Congress does NOT wish to be constrained by the enumerated powers. And that, my friends, should be a wake up call. Danger Will Robinson, DANGER!

The whole 'commerce clause' issue is a huge can of worms and allways has been. There is a rather excellent analysis of various 'commerce clause' issues on the Cato Institutes website. I urge everyone to read it. The Commerce Clause has been so twisted and contorted to justify just about damn near anything. After all, guns are a matter of 'interstate commerce'. If you take the 'interstate commerce' argument to its logical conclusion its not hard to see where almost ANYTHING could be regulated by some agency like the ATF. Think about all the items in your home that at ONE TIME traveled in interstate commerce. Its quite clearly absurd to any logical person, but who said anyone in Washington was logical.

[Jim March]

For Wildalaska:

Quoting:

>> And 1983 was crafted for exactly that reason.,..to stop civil rights violations under color of state law...<<

Sure, it was one of a whole family of laws crafted for that purpose, the "king" of which was the 14th Amendment, all passed between 1866 and I think the last was in 1869 or 70?

My point is that the actions of Cruikshank and company *clearly* fell into that category: "civil rights violations under color of state law" as you put it.

OH YA, there WERE parts of that whole "attempted system" to fix racism that were aimed at individuals: the Freedman's Bureau act and especially the specifically anti-KKK act (I forget exactly what it was called) were NOT entirely aimed at state agents, but private citizens at least in part.

>> No, cited as it may be, Cruikshank is no longer "good law". <<

Heh. What was your first clue?

:)

Seriously, Judge Reinhardt in the recent 12/02 3-judge 9th panel decision in Silveira disparaged Cruikshank because clearly, the "surviving bit" about the 2A won't last two seconds before the USSC. But it IS still being cited, by Calif AG Lockyer for starters.

>> Further, are you contending that it is good policy, on a constitutional level, to allow the Feds to prosecute crimes by ordinary citizens...ie do you agree with federal prosecutions of civil rights violations directed against individual actions? <<

Hell yes, if the states won't do it!

Both the Feds and states need to be involved in the field of protecting individual civil rights. The entire history of the US post-civil-war just SCREAMS the need!

Hell, even *before* that...God, in 1858/59, I can't recall which, South Carolina passed a law banning any preacher from praising abolition (anti-slavery) from any pulpit, regardless of his race or the racec of his congregation...punishable by death. Gee, so much for freedom of speech OR freedom of religion.

You think the Feds should be barred from doing anything about that?

>> On the contrary, I think that at least in dicta, it has so been recognized. It just has not been applied to the states via selective incorporation. <<

When I wrote "They've yet to view the 2nd as a "fundamental right"", I meant it in the context of incorporation.

>> Are you complaining that the Courts have intepreted the constitution at different time periods based on prevailing socio-political mores? Remember the same founding fathers that created the second amendment were slave owners. Isnt it a good feature of our system that legal "errors" can be corrected based on evolviong standards? Hasnt British jurisprudence also so evolved? <<

OH no. It's much worse than that.

The USSC destroyed the 14th Amendment pretty much entirely. Jesus, they burned it to the ground and scattered the ashes between 1872 and 1900. They did it out of spite and racism...there's just no other way to begin to interpret freakshows like Cruikshank, Williams and Plessy :barf:.

And THEN when they built it back up again, they used a "badly skewed set of blueprints". They left the P&I clause for dead, they jerry-rigged "selective incorporation" onto the Due Process clause by supporting just those elements of the BoR they were prepared to support at a given time, and the Equal Protection clause was turned into a vehicle for reverse discrimination instead of true equality.

:cuss:

>> Now let me add here that I am not particularly familair with your particular California case so cannot comment as to why your judge ruled the way he did. <<

I'll go into details on that below. It'll be best if I answer the rest of your paragraph first...

>> On the other hand I must disagree that rational basis and strict scrutiny are "baseless"...they are not legal concepts derived from the law, but analytical tests to ascertain whether fundamental rights are violated. <<

But in the real world, whether discrimination is judged on one or the other is based on the race of the person discriminated against. We'll get into that in my last Fed case.

They were and remain an invention of the courts, and I've personally seen them promote racism.

>> In a practical sense, assuming arguendo that the SC rules the 2a is an individual right AND is applicable to the states, what test do you propose to determine whehter a particular "gun control" (a generic phrase) law is violative of that right? <<

Well under current doctrine, "rational basis" is a joke because first, the presumption of rationality is given to the law in question. As long as the gov't lawyers defending the law and/or discriminatory process can "state a claim that sounds halfway good", the law stands unless it can be PROVEN "irrational".

Well you can't prove a negative. You can tell me that last week, a pink alien spacecraft from Saturn landed in a Wyoming cornfield and three bug-eyed beasties got out and did the "Macarena" to the an old Elvis tune, and I might say "horsecrap"!

At which point you can say "Oh yea? PROVE IT!" and "win" the argument :rolleyes:.

If a gun control law gets subjected to "strict scrutiny", it'll be trashed if either of two conditions happen:

1) It can't be shown likely that it'll do a damn bit of good, or:

2) It might help things, but less-restrictive measures would also help.

I believe the *VAST* majority of all current gun control would fail a "strict scrutiny" evaluation. I can live with any that don't fail - believe it or not, I'm not a "Second amendment purist".

>> BTW, I am still curious abourt the RKBA or lack thereof in State constitutions and its relationship to a federal right. <<

In most of the original 13 states, the state RKBA clause came *first* and influenced the later 2nd Amendment - those state Constitutions were there back when we were operating under the old Articles of Confederacy. The states said they wouldn't ratify the core Constitution under the new system unless work started on a BoR. When new states formed, they copied the style and structure of both the new Constitution/BoR *and* the state Constitutions from the original 13 - after all, the people in the younger states came from the older.

So it's possible to read too much into the existence of state RKBA clauses, and say that their existence should supplant or eliminate the need to have the Fed 2nd Amendment apply to the states. State RKBA clauses are basically a leftover from the era when the central-gov't didn't yet have a BoR.

---------------

About my case:

Basically, I proved that my sheriff had discriminated in CCW issuance in two "layers":

1) First, he would only issue to the upper and middle income towns in the county, which were either unincorporated or incorporated but lacked their own PDs and hired the sheriff's office for patrol services. The lower and middle income towns had their own independent Police Chiefs and said Chiefs asked the sheriff to discriminate against their own town's citizens in permit issuance. This was codified in a "Contra Costa County Police Chief's Association Model CCW Protocol" document, which I have.

The Chiefs of these towns either didn't issue, or issued only to government employees (contrary to a state appellate court decision calling exactly that policy "abusive").

The towns thus blocked were consistently "blacker" than the rest of the county. As a resident of one of the "blacker" towns, I may have been white, but I was still being screwed by this process.

In case you think I'm making all this up:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cccc2.pdf

2) Even if you were rich enough to live in one of the areas the sheriff had declared to be "in his jurisdiction", your permit application would be judged based on membership in his personal political club and/or campaign contributions.

I had..."indications" of #2, but not hard enough proof. I had absolute proof of #1, the racial/economic/geographic based barrier...but I wasn't allowed to raise it because I was too pale.

:cuss:

That's OK. I'm gonna try again. 'Cept it won't be me as plaintiff, it'll be a black and/or Latino :cool:. The courts wanna play games, fine, let's muthaf***in' PLAY.

For more on the exact gameplan for my next major case devised *after* that race-based crash'n'burn in Fed court a couple years back, see also this document, particularly the 2nd chapter on equal protection:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/practicalrace.html

It's been reviewed by six lawyers to date - none can find any flaws other than "what's the legislature likely to do when we win".

I'd be particularly interested in your take on the Arlington Heights and Hunter precidents as a method of getting "strict scrutiny" applied to the California discretionary CCW system.

[Don Gwinn]

I can't imagine why this thread is still here.

Without taking sides, because honestly, I can see important points on both sides if I squint real hard past all the threats and personal attacks, I would just like to observe that comparing the possession of a prohibited object to the rape of a child is so monumental a fallacy as to be a little disturbing.

[Wildalaska]

I would just like to observe that comparing the possession of a prohibited object to the rape of a child is so monumental a fallacy as to be a little disturbing.

I never used the term "rape". Regarldless, sex with lets say a 13 year old girl and possession of a SBR both are malum prohibitum are they not.?

WildinterestingconundrumAlaska

[Wildalaska]

Okay, what exactly IS your position on the 2nd Amendment? Its somewhat hard to tell because you 'seem' to be saying that anyone that questions what currently consitutes the relevant laws is bound to obey them no matter how ridiculous they might be. Can I perhaps assume that you think at least some of the current laws are just as absurd as I do? If so, which ones would those be? I am very curious. Lets take Safe Neighborhoods as an example. Another huge abuse of the 10th Amendment.

My position on the Second A is the same as I have expressed time and time again...it does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on guns. Such "restrictions" (if you can call them even that) are ther Instant Check system, denial of rights to convicted felons, the NFA (as much as that one pisses me off). I beleive that a registration scheme would also be constituional, albiet stupid. My main issue being researched is however, is whether the 2A applies to the staes, hence my question above which has not yet been answered.

As to laws there are tons and tons of stupid, useless laws. Some are constituional, some are not. My point has alwys been..you dont like a law, obey it at your own risk and fight it either politically, in the courts or via civil disobedience. Jim March fights it. That guy in California got arrested for it. Yapping on the internet about how bad things are, threatening non believers with "hanging" and doing absolutely nothing to demonstrate a commitment to what you beleive in is a plain waste of time, air and bandwith. To just willy disobey a law becasue YOU feel it is wrong is ANARCHY.

In point of fact, I've never been involved in a violent altercation in my life, and hope I never have to be involved in one. You should take it for what is, forceful rhetoric.

Forceful rhetoric threatening or approving of the use of violence against "unbelivers" is as bad as a direct threat. Witness old Uncle Adolf who told everyone in foreceful rhetoric what he was gonna do. Since I have no desire to be "hung" for my beleifs in a nation where certain groups use violence to enforce their political agenda, I take such "rhetoric" very seriously. Very seriously. And Im not standing idly by and treating it as "heated argument.

think its hard to argue that the majority of firearms laws in the USA consitute nothing more than a 'malum prohibitum':

So are the majority of laws (absent forcible rape, murder, incest). What does that point add to the debate. Are all malum prohibitums bad?

WildnocatchybylinethisamAlaska

[Marko Kloos]

Are all malum prohibitums bad?

Yes. Malum prohibitum and prior restraint laws are immoral.

If you can't point to a victim, there is no crime. Only an action which directly infringes on another person's rights should be classified as a crime.

[Wildalaska]

Hi Jim...yikes you are verbose:D Perhaps you and I should get together some time, file a 1983 against the entire gun control movement in the DC in Alaska, and paper em to death...:D

My point is that the actions of Cruikshank and company *clearly* fell into that category: "civil rights violations under color of state law" as you put it.

I honestly have never nbeen convinced of that. On the other hand, in dealing with Cruikshank, Ive always treated it (and seen it treated) ans a somewhat interesting anomoly in jurisprudence for what its worth...

Seriously, Judge Reinhardt in the recent 12/02 3-judge 9th panel decision in Silveira disparaged Cruikshank because clearly, the "surviving bit" about the 2A won't last two seconds before the USSC. But it IS still being cited, by Calif AG Lockyer for starters.

Old law school adage...If you have the facts, argue the facts, if you have the law, argue the law, if you have neither..just argue. Cruikshank arguments to a great extent are among the last....

Both the Feds and states need to be involved in the field of protecting individual civil rights.

I respectfully disagree, but perhapos we should discuss the pros and cons of expanding Federal power on a different thread.

believe the *VAST* majority of all current gun control would fail a "strict scrutiny" evaluation. I can live with any that don't fail - believe it or not, I'm not a "Second amendment purist".

I agree. But keep in mind the issue is to make sure that strict scrutiny is used AND, that the 2nd A is applicable to the states. Thats why Cruikshank is so important.

So it's possible to read too much into the existence of state RKBA clauses, and say that their existence should supplant or eliminate the need to have the Fed 2nd Amendment apply to the states. State RKBA clauses are basically a leftover from the era when the central-gov't didn't yet have a BoR.

And the absence of such clauses..or the limitation of such? Or the expanded nature of such? What do they say about the intent of the framers? Doesnt this change your reading of ZCruikshank a bit?

But hey my wife is dragging me out to Wally world...she buys yarn and I do price checking (Hi Yes I have that in stcok and iots cheaper than Walmart)...will try to look at the stuff about your case later..I assume you are pro se..if so I will help...

[Wildalaska]

If you can't point to a victim, there is no crime. Only an action which directly infringes on another person's rights should be classified as a crime.

OK a consistent point. Theft, murder/assault, destrction of property, sex assault, all victims.

So that therefore legalizes prostitution, drugs, guns, sex with "minors", porn, sodomy, moonshinig, gambling....

Wildgonnapickandchoose?Alaska

[Marko Kloos]

Yes, everything but the "sex with minors" thing, since they are not consenting adults and cannot be party to a legal contract.

The desire of some people to keep others from boozing, drug-snorting, gambling, prostituting, or moonshining has caused more harm by destruction of civil liberties and freedom than all these activities combined. All these activities do not harm anyone but the people voluntarily engaged in them, so why should the government have any interest in it? The conviction that you know what is best for your fellow man is absolutely no excuse for holding a gun to his head and forcing him to do it.

"No victim, no crime" is not a popular principle because such a legal code makes it impossible for a great many people to tell others what to do. Where's the money and power in that?

[Jim March]

You're not going to convince me that Cruikshank isn't a disaster from top to bottom. Reinhardt agreed, much as his radically anti-gun sentiments would have LIKED to use it. The court in Morton Grove relied on Cruikshank, but did so by way of Presser so as to mask the horror of Cruikshank which somebody might have noticed had they cited it directly. Presser just repeats and cites Cruikshank, but gets cited more because it isn't obviously a pro-KKK case :fire:.

--------------

Child molestation does *horrific* mental damage. My mother filled me in on that point, from her own personal experieces. Child molestation is ALWAYS a direct, harmful attack...or "initiation of force" if you prefer.

--------------

On ignoring bad laws: actually, there is a long, honorable history of publicly ignoring bad law in order to harm it and ultimately destroy it. Ghandi's march to the sea for salt is a classic example, as is Rosa Parks and the people who deliberately violated "whites only" seating rules across the South.

The Petco pet supply chain of stores regularly does millions of dollars of business in California from the sale of triangular litter pans, ferret food, ferret toys/beds/food supplements/magazines and the like. They sell everything but the actual ferrets, which are banned in this state :p. It points to the stupidity of the law in graphic fashion, and those sales figures have been an effective tool in fighting the law. In point of fact, we'd have NO chance of a repeal passing if it WASN'T for the widespread deliberate violations of said law. I once had my own two skinnykitties in my state senator's office, where they licked the face of his secretary who was shocked at how cute they were :p. She passed that "intel" along, and he voted for legalization.

Were the people who ran the "underground railroad" prior to the Civil War "anarchists"? Or the northern juries that routinely set slaves charges with escape free? Hell no. Jury nullification was a known, documented concept set up to provide one final check and balance against bad laws, and has been gutted of late for statist reasons :banghead:.

[Wildalaska]

Yes, everything but the "sex with minors" thing, since they are not consenting adults and cannot be party to a legal contract.

Where do you draw the line....are you saying that becasue there is a legal fiction of "18" years old a child less than that does not have the right to control his own body...??

The point is there are mature 15 year olds...just as there are childish 50 year olds. The law draws an arbitrary line..above the line is OK, below the line is not. The line drawn is based on experience, morality, politics, whatever. But it is drawn and there is a RATIONAL BASIS for it yes? Jim says that child molestation is always a horrific thing. Again where to draw the line...isnt there a difference between the consenting 15 year old and the helpless 10 year old.

Let me stop here and say that this is an academic discussion and I for one firmly beleive in AOC laws and anti child exploitation laws..

And by the way think of how many 21 year old felons there are who have been convicted on consensual sex with minors. Lost their gun rights to becasue of a malum prohibitum offense.

Now look at gun laws. Examine this one...hospitalized mental cannot own firearms. Is there a rational basis for this? Of course.
What about the costituional rights of the patient..hell he can even refuse treatment. Surely no on is arguing here that we should pass out AR15s in the local psych hospitals are we?

So tell me whats wrong with that malum prohibitum Telll me how that differs from prohibitng relations between a 21 year old girl and a 15 year old boy.

[Wildalaska]

You're not going to convince me that Cruikshank isn't a disaster from top to bottom.

Sorry in a pure 2ndA "meaning" case, it is....see the language about the nature of the right....

Child molestation does *horrific* mental damage.

See above. In addition, look at the ages of consent throughout history, and in European countries. Arbiitrary is arbitrary.

On ignoring bad laws: actually, there is a long, honorable history of publicly ignoring bad law in order to harm it and ultimately destroy it. Ghandi's march to the sea for salt is a classic example, as is Rosa Parks and the people who deliberately violated "whites only" seating rules across the South.

These actions were taken to test and challenge laws seen to be unjust..I have no qualrrel with those actions and admire them. I admire the California Court House guy.

Were the people who ran the "underground railroad" prior to the Civil War "anarchists"? Or the northern juries that routinely set slaves charges with escape free? Hell no. Jury nullification was a known, documented concept set up to provide one final check and balance against bad laws, and has been gutted of late for statist reasons

Again I do not quarrel with civil disobedience as long as someone is willing to face the consequences. And jury nullification still exists, look at Randy Weaver.

WildAlaska

[LawDog]

What, may I ask, is so bloody difficult to understand when we say "No Personal Attacks"? What? Somebody tell me, please.

Is it the polysyllabic "Personal"?

One more time for the cheap seats:

If you can't debate someone else on this board without using insults, threats, comparisons to whatthehellever Evil Organizations jack your fancy these days, or cute references to mental incompetence, you jolly well go somewhere else. Am I clear on this?

E-mail, PM, or any of the squillions of un-moderated boards on the Internet. Take your pick.

Closed for thread veer, insults, wallowing in the bar-ditch beside the Low Road, and attempted homicide of a Moderator by way of coronary aneurysm. :fire:

LawDog