[Desertdog]

Sounds, to me, like the judge needs to be impeached. Dd


COLUMN: Vin Suprynowicz
'You are not to reference the Constitution ... '

Protesting a Denver ordinance against bearing arms, business owner and Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Rick Stanley late last year strapped on a hip holster bearing a .380 Beretta (fellow protester Duncan Philp chose a shoulder rig) during a Dec. 15 rally celebrating the 210th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

He'd advertised what he was going to do and invited Denver police to come get him. They did. He was peacefully arrested by 18 officers, and brought to trial on May 15 in the municipal court of Judge Robert L. Patterson.

It was defense attorney Paul Grant's voir dire questioning of a potential juror who was also a police officer that gave the first indication of the way things were going to go in Judge Patterson's courtroom.

"I asked her when you became a police officer didn't you take an oath to protect and defend the constitutions of the United States and the state of Colorado. She said, 'I guess I did; I can't remember.' I asked her were you ever instructed in those constitutional rights, and she said no.

"Then I asked her, if the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the defendant a right to keep and bear arms, do you think you could follow his instructions?"

Stanley describes "pandemonium" erupting in the Denver courtroom halfway through his attorney's question, the city attorney leaping to his feet to object as the judge banged his gavel.

Dismissing the prospective jurors for lunch, Judge Patterson began to lecture Grant, instructing him, according to both Grant's recollection and Stanley's, "I already sent you an order in this case. The order has been mailed to your offices. You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand?"

Grant replied that he did not.

The defendant and his attorney report that the judge said, "Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?"

A jury of five women and one man -- not including the cop -- was finally seated. Grant then presented to the judge (he was not allowed to make this argument to the jury) the affirmative defense that both the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Colorado, Article II, protect the defendant's right to keep and bear arms, citing a Colorado Supreme Course as a controlling precedent.

But Judge Patterson rejected that defense argument along with all others, replying (according to Grant, Stanley and another witness) that precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court and even the Constitution of Colorado are not applicable in Denver, because Denver is a home-rule city.

After closing arguments, MIT graduate David Bryant, who serves as public information director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado and also as Stanley's campaign treasurer, approached Assistant City Attorney Paul Puckett to see if he could clarify his understanding of Judge Patterson's remarks.

"As I understand it," Bryant recalls saying to Puckett, "Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of Colorado do not protect any of my rights from the government of Denver. Is that your understanding? Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?"

"Yes," Bryant claims he was told by Puckett. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city."

Reached at his office in Denver, Mr. Puckett responds: "Unfortunately the judge didn't say that, nor did I. Those were the words of Mr. Bryant, who reported them in his, whatever, on the Internet, not a very unbiased observer. What I did tell him in the courtroom was that Denver, as a home-rule city, has a right to pass reasonable regulations on the carrying of weapons. That's under their home-rule status and the constitution of the state of Colorado, and I referred him to a recent court of appeals case finding that ordinance constitutional. But no, the rest of it is fiction."

(Judge Patterson did not return my calls.)

Rick Stanley's jury reached a unanimous "guilty" verdict after deliberating one hour. Stanley could face a $999 fine and up to a year in jail at sentencing, now scheduled for July 25. Stanley says he'll appeal.

The statists currently running our legal system will insist this is the way things are supposed to go, of course -- if there's any constitutional problem with the victim disarmament statute it'll be decided at the appellate level, years from now, assuming Stanley and co-defendant Philp can afford the tens of thousands of dollars necessary to get that far.

But that's pernicious nonsense. What other constitutional rights could be violated so blatantly, and with such impunity? If the Denver City Council passed an ordinance banning Presbyterian sermons within city limits; or free speech by anyone but Republicans (and then only on Tuesdays from noon to 3), would Judge Patterson sit there and simper, "I have no choice but to enforce the law as written. The defendant was clearly caught conducting a Presbyterian religious service within the city limits"?

I don't think so. I think it's just our gun rights.

To contribute to the appeals fund, send checks to attorney Paul Grant "for the defense of Rick Stanley and Duncan Philp" at 6426 S. Quebec St., Englewood, Colo. 80111.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jun-23-Sun-2002/opinion/18975535.html

Vin Suprynowicz, the Review-Journal's assistant editorial page editor, is author of "The Ballad of Carl Drega." His column appears Sunday.

[SteelyDan]

Just so we're all clear here, municipal ordinances (home rule or otherwise) do NOT trump state or federal constitutions. If the judge had ruled before trial (as he probably did) that those constitutions do not guarantee a right to carry, and that defense counsel should therefore not ask any questions about constitutional rights, then the defense attorney acted improperly.

You should know which side my sympathies are on, but I'm not aware of any court that has ever held we have a constitutional right to wear a packed hip holster. In my opinion, this article seems to be as biased in favor of "our position" as are so many mainstream articles that oppose it. Neither of those biases do a service to the general public.

[LawDog]

Be interesting to get a transcript of the court proceedings and find out what was actually said, and by whom.

LawDog

[Ladybug]

Um, yeah, that article - though entertaining - probably doesn't do justice to what really happened. If someone violates a local law re carrying a gun, I don't blame the judge for saying that they can't raise the 2nd Amendment defense. The writer of this article obviously doesn't know that the 1st Amendment, for example, is very different from the 2nd Amendment (sadly) in how it applies to states and individuals (as opposed to just the federal govt). If you're going to try to challenge how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution, this is probably not goint to be the best way to go about it. I think it's about time the issue of individual right to carry, the 2nd Amend and the incorporation clause of the 14th Amend, etc. get re-evaluated in the Sup. Ct., but anyone who is going to fight that fight successfully will have to do a little more research and come up with a better way of raising the issue.

[KC]

"You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand my instructions?"

That your instructions may be illegal, you honor? Nevermind in extremely poor taste and worse personal judgement?

If the basis for all law in this nation may not be invoked per your order, on what basis does you have authority to call this or any other court, or the legal competancy to hear this case?

[Roadkill Coyote]

This may shock you, :rolleyes:

It would appear that, having failed to show up for sentancing, and having threatened to "arrest" the judges involved in his cases, both in writing and on his website, Mr. Stanley got arrested on saturday.

Stanley accused of threats (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1712263,00.html)
"Stanley now faces two felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 24 years in prison."
There has been no sign of the armed resistance to arrest, and retaliation by his "militia" that he had so much to say about...

:rolleyes:

[BigG]

Oh, wow, man. This is, like, Colorado, what do you expect from these wanna be Califonians? Excuse me, I have to, like, score some herb. :rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

If someone violates a local law re carrying a gun, I don't blame the judge for saying that they can't raise the 2nd Amendment defense.

Actually, that's a violation of Due Process. Arguably, the 2nd Amendment trumps state/local law on the subject, so refusing to allow a defendant to base his defense on the Amendment unreasonably impairs his ability to defend himself.

[org]

Give it a break, BigG. You obviously don't know much about CO if you compare us to CA. We have one of the better CC laws in the country, have always been able to carry loaded (open or concealed) in a car without a permit, and the Democrats are in the minority in both population and in the legislature.

[BigG]

Sorry, org, if you're not a aged hippy, but most of the CO types I've met are.

[cuchulainn]

http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=281822Gun rights activist accused of threatening judges

BRIGHTON, Colo. (AP) - The 2002 Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate from Colorado has been arrested on charges he failed to appear in court and he threatened two judges in Adams County.

Rick Stanley, 49, ran unsuccessfully against Republican Sen. Wayne Allard last year, then later left the Libertarian Party of Colorado.

He had been arrested in September 2002 for attending the Thornton Harvest Fest with a loaded revolver on his hip, which he has said he believes is his constitutional right, and was convicted on a misdemeanor gun charge.

But instead of appearing to be sentenced at a hearing scheduled last Wednesday, he had a document titled ''Notice and Order' delivered to the municipal and state district judges handling his case, according to court records.

The document, posted on Stanley's Web site, ''ordered'' the judges to dismiss the charge and return to him $1,500 in bond money, his ''Smith and Wesson 6 shot .357 pistol and 6 each .357 bullets.''

The document also accused the judges of treason and included a statement he would have his ''mutual defenses Pact Militia'' order a warrant for their arrest.

Bob Grant, district attorney for Adams and Broomfield counties, viewed the notice as a threat against the judges.

''Law enforcement takes these folks extremely seriously, takes their threats extremely seriously, and that's why this case was investigated and filed,'' he said.

Stanley was arrested over the weekend.

Stanley, facing two felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant, was being held under $50,000 bail. However he was not eligible for release until he completes the 90-day sentence handed down in his absence last week, Grant said.

[Quartus]

Great. We've got Dueling Idiots here.


If the judge had ruled before trial (as he probably did) that those constitutions do not guarantee a right to carry, and that defense counsel should therefore not ask any questions about constitutional rights, then the defense attorney acted improperly.


Wrong. The Constitution is the basis for law in this country. The judge has no right to order it muzzled.


The judiciary in this country has arrogated to itself a lot of authority that it does not have. This is an example.

[Deepdiver]

Sorry, org, if you're not a aged hippy, but most of the CO types I've met are.

..then you must be hangin' out in Boulder and Denver too much, (the parts of CO that don't have or need any constitutional rights because they have city government around to take care of all their wants and needs).

The rest of the state is pretty conservative, where most folks actually showed up for their high school american civics class (you know, that course that was dropped from CA high school curriculums a few decades ago).

BTW: the rest of that court room story, if true, makes me want to puke :barf: !!

[Langenator]

Things that are needed to make a reasoned judgement here:

1. The section(s) of the Denver/CO law(s) that Mr. Stanley was/is accused of violating.

2. Copies of Judge Patterson's "Don't mention the Constitution" written instructions.

3. Court transcripts of the trial, or at least the part where Judge P is giving instructions about not mentioning the Constitution, Denver home rule, etc?


Didn't SC try that "home rule" (only they called it "nullification) bit back during the Jackson administration?

[TarpleyG]

He was peacefully arrested by 18 officers
Wow! What a great way to spend taxpayer's money. He would have been peacefully arrested by one officer.

GT

[Ladybug]

Quartus, I'm running waaay late this morning, but quickly.... the 2nd Amendment only applies to congress' ability to pass federal laws that infringe on RKBA, it does NOT apply to your individual right. Why do the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to individual rights? Because of the 14th Amendment. Do I like it? No. Does a lowly little municipal judge in Denver have any power to change it? No.

[BigG]

Boulder and Denver

Guilty, your honor. ;) Those were the algore parts of the state, weren't they? :uhoh:

[Quartus]

the 2nd Amendment only applies to congress' ability to pass federal laws that infringe on RKBA,


Not so. You may be thinking of the First, which states that "Congress shall make no law...."

The Second is worded entirely differently. It says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


It doesn't say by WHOM, and it mentions Congress not at all. It simply says HANDS OFF the right to keep and bear arms. And that was true long before the 14th was, uh, ratified.

[Mark Tyson]

Besides, the 14th amendment applies the protections of the federal BOR to the states. The mention of Congress in the 1st is irrelevant, because speech is considered to be a privilge and immunity of citizenship.

Anyway, doesn't Colorado's BOR have its own protections?

[Ladybug]

Quartus, it doesn't matter... The US Constitution only applies to FEDERAL powers - ie, restrictions on congress re what laws they can pass. What matters then is how the courts have interpreted the Constitution - that is what common law is all about. The 14th Amendment means that some parts of the Bill of Rights (like the 1st Amend.) apply to ALL PEOPLE and states cannot pass laws that infringe with those rights. The courts have said that this does NOT apply to the 2nd Amendment - the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to Federal power, and states can restrict individual rights when it comes to RKBA all they want. Sorry.

[Ladybug]

It doesn't say by WHOM, and it mentions Congress not at all. It simply says HANDS OFF the right to keep and bear arms.

I have to get this off my chest because it irritates me... people cannot assume that by reading a law they get to interpret it, or even assume that it means what it says. Reading the constitutions or statutes or whatever is only half of what will tell you the REAL law - the other half is reading cases. It's called common law - we have it, like it or not.

[Quartus]

Oh, I get it. You are talking about what various courts have said. Another example of how courts have illegally assumed power that was not given to them.


I was talking about what the Constitution actually SAYS.

[Ladybug]

Quartus - the courts are not illegally taking any powers - we have a common law system, which means that part of our laws come from the legislature and part of our laws come from the courts. You may (justifiably) disagree with how the courts have ruled on some matters, but that doesn't change the fact that it is within their right. If you want to understand something like the RKBA, it would behoove you to read some materials OTHER THAN just the Constitution - because (like it or not) there are a lot of things (court rules, local laws, etc.) that affect how the Constitution applies to you.

[cuchulainn]

I think Rick Stanley is a showboater more interested in Rick Stanley than in the RKBA.

that said...The 14th Amendment means that some parts of the Bill of Rights (like the 1st Amend.) apply to ALL PEOPLE and states cannot pass laws that infringe with those rights. The courts have said that this does NOT apply to the 2nd Amendment I didn't know any courts had actually ruled against incorporating the 2nd. Do you have a cite? While there are 19th Century cases in which courts said the 2nd does not apply to the states, that's not the same thing as saying that the 2nd cannot be incorporated.the other half is reading cases. It's called common law - we have it, like it or not. Yes, but the fact that a court ruled on an issue does not justify a later court's forbidding a course of argument base on that issue.

This would be like the judge in Brown v. Board of Ed. saying that the "equal protection" clause could not be raised because Plessy v. Furgeson had established "separate but equal" as valid.

[Ladybug]

cuchulainn,

the court has rejected efforts to incorporate the second amendment. i will find cases later (lunch break almost up!) and post them.

Yes, but the fact that a court ruled on an issue does not justify a later court's forbidding a course of argument base on that issue.

no, but it limits what lower courts (like this one) can decide, and in that respect the decisions act as laws... which does not, obviously, mean that they cannot be changed (just like legislation can be changed). it just means until there is a new rule, the one we got now is the one we got to go by. the denver judge didn't have to listen to how the defendant thinks the 2nd amendment applies to him - now the colorado constitution is a different matter.

[Quartus]

Courts have no powers not granted to them in the Constitution of the United States or the several states (for state courts).


Show me anywhere that any of those documents grants the power of interpretation to any court.


This business of courts INTERPRETING laws is something the FF wrote about, and FEARED.


If it isn't a granted power, it's illegal, no matter how universal the practice may be.

[Ladybug]

quartus,
you're obviously in over your head - go back to civics class before you get too bent out of shape. :rolleyes:

[cuchulainn]

no, but it limits what lower courts (like this one) can decide But not what they can hear. The fact that the court refused to even hear the argument (it rather should have written in its opinion that the issue was "settled" and beyond its ruling), makes it harder for that issue to be taken to the higher, more-appropriate venue.

The fact is that plenty of judges hear second amendment arguments and then turn around and write "Hey, it's out of my hands."

In this case, IMHO, that's a good thing given that I cringe at having Rick Stanley as an RKBA defendant.the court has rejected efforts to incorporate the second amendment. i will find cases later (lunch break almost up!) and post them. Actually, U.S v Cruickshank in 1876 did rule against incorporating the 2nd. But Cruickshank also ruled against incorporating the Assembly Clause of the 1st (which since has been incorporated), so it's not a very good precedent for saying that the 2nd is beyond incorporation.

Presser v. Illinois (1886) relied on Cruickshank in saying that the 2nd doesn't apply to the states, so it is similarly open to attack.

Miller v. Texas 1894 had the issue before it but refused to decide it on procedural grounds that the issue was not raised at the trial court (which harkens back to the judge's refusal to allow Stanley to raise an issue at the trial court)

[Quartus]

Ladybug, you obviously have bought bought - hook line and sinker - the revisionist view of law that prevails today.


Which means you don't know much. I notice you didn't answer my question.

[MrAcheson]

I have to agree with Ladybug here. If we had a legal system closer to the french napoleonic model (its not a precidence based system to my understanding) then Quartus would have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately we don't.

We have a system based both on law and judicial precident which we inherited from the british. Current decisions must be consistent with previous ones or the previous ones must be overturned by a court of equal authority. To really understand the law in this country, unfortunately you have to be a lawyer.

We had a legal system in this country long before the US constitution. The Constitution was written to constrain the powers of the new stronger federal government. The 14th amendment transferred many (but thanks to current judicial precident) not all of those requirements to the states. Some may have trickled down to the municipal level (like miranda rights and search/seizure) and some states may directly apply them to their municipalities via legislation, but its not guaranteed.

Quartus, please stop railing about how the government works when it most certainly does not work that way. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. Sorry.

[cuchulainn]

Show me anywhere that any of those documents grants the power of interpretation to any court. How, then, could a court uphold the individual right under the 2nd. if not by interpreting "people" to mean "individuals"?

"People" could mean "individuals, but it also could be a collective noun -- I assume that all of us here agree with the "individual" interpretation, but that's nonetheless an interpreation of a word.

[org]

Ladybug, I'd hesitate to use civics class to justify anything. Try going back to the constitution...all the other things you cite come later. The courts have overstepped their constitutional bounds consistently, and will continue to do so until they are populated with judges that don't feel the need to socially engineer.

Rick Stanley, IMHO, does more damage to our cause than good. That doesn't excuse judicial abuse of his original case.

[Quartus]

MrAcheson, you must have missed my earlier post. I made it quite clear that I am aware of how it currently works. I am talking about what is LEGAL, NOT about what is DONE. There is simply no authority for the current practices. The courts do not even EXIST without authoritiy from their respective Constitutions, and do not have any authority not granted by those Constitutions. (State and Federal, respectively.) I am not aware of any of those documents which grant the courts authority to interpret those documents. The Federal Constitution certainly does not.

As it stands now, the courts are creating their own power, and making law, which is not legal. It stands, to be sure - they get away with it, to be sure, but it is not legal.


And it stands because we allow it to.

[cuchulainn]

Quartus, so you believe it would be illegal for the court to interpret "people" in the 2nd Amt to mean "individuals."

[Quartus]

cuchulainn, there is a difference between understanding the meaning of words (your example) and interpreting law, as is currently done by the courts.

In your example, the document interprets that word by its own context. Unless we impose later ideas on it (which is what many people do today) the Constitution explains itself. In the event the original intent is not completely clear, it can readily be discerned by referring to the writings of the Founders who approved that document. In all cases, we find that they used plain language, and the "confusion" that needs to be "interpreted" is simply a result of not taking the plain sense of the words. (Assuming one is conversant with the English language of the day, which is not always the case.)

[Quartus]

We're cross posting here, cuchulainn, but I think I answered your second question.

[Quartus]

I'd hesitate to use civics class to justify anything

Especially if you had a civics teacher like mine - she made Barbara Boxer look like a moderate!


And if all you learned is what you learned in school, you ain't very well edumacated. And that's true of most subjects.

[cuchulainn]

In your example, the document interprets that word by its own context. Unless we impose later ideas on it (which is what many people do today) the Constitution explains itself. But you said interpreting was extraconstitutional. It's not.

Your problem is with the type of interpretation -- simple/plain language versus creative/progressive.

Most people here probably would agree with you that the tendency to creative/progressive interpretation -- as if the Constitution were a cypher that needed decoding -- often has gone too far.

But with all due respect :) -- and I think Ladybug was reacting to this too -- you came across as insisting that any interpretation was wrong.

[Ladybug]

Ladybug, I'd hesitate to use civics class to justify anything

How bout law school? :rolleyes:
I just thought Quantus could benefit from some basic civics - his teacher was OBVIOUSLY bad because he has no idea how our government works. Of course, as long as he sits in his house, clutching his copy of the Constition and never ventures into the real world, it doesn't matter what he believes.

cuchulainn,
I agree with everything you're saying... the cases you cited are the ones I was thinking of. After those, there has never been a case where incorporation was successfully used, nor any court that stated in dicta that it could be. Which, of course, does not mean that it CAN'T be - it just means as things stand right now, it doesn't. It's HIGH TIME for some fresh caselaw on the issue!!

As for what the judge allowed or didn't allow - I'm not going to assume the moron that wrote that article gave us the whole story. I have a feeling that this comment about the Constitution was taken out of context. Show me a more reliable source about what really happened!

[buzz_knox]

How bout law school? I just thought Quantus could benefit from some basic civics - his teacher was OBVIOUSLY bad because he has no idea how our government works. Of course, as long as he sits in his house, clutching his copy of the Constition and never ventures into the real world, it doesn't matter what he believes.

Guess you haven't learned tact yet in school, nor learned anything about arguing your case. Assuming an air of arrogance because you are in law school doesn't assist your case. Let me guess, you're a first year, right?

There are those of us who have actually graduated from law school and have practiced for some years who disagree with you. For example, you seem to place as much emphasis on the Constitution (not Constition as you spelled it) as the common law. Apparently, the law school you attend has failed to instruct you in the proper balance between the two, to wit, there is no balance. The Constitution is the principle foundation of our system of government, and where the Constitution speaks, the common law ceases to have primacy. Common law only operates in the absence of statutes, and where statutes exist, common law, at best, serves as a guide for understanding those statutes.

By the way, Quartus' (not Quantus) idea of how it's supposed to be is correct, not yours. While the Supreme Court's decision that it was the interpreter of the law was understandable and even laudable given the checks and balances systems developed by the founders, it was not intended as an authorization for courts to legislate from the bench. If a court found that a law was unconstitutional, the law was to be voided. It was not to be modified, molded, or shaped to fit the court's interpretation.

As for the incorporation of the 2nd amendment, that's actually a debatable point. Various Supreme Court decisions have narrowly defeated the full incorporation doctrine (usually for less than laudable reasons) and there is sufficient doubt in the logic of those rationales that a lower court could find that they are distinguishable in the right case, and determine that the 2nd A should be (if in fact it has not already been) incorporated.

[buzz_knox]

Unless we impose later ideas on it (which is what many people do today) the Constitution explains itself.

Not always. The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to pass those laws "necessary and proper" to carry out its assigned responsibilites. Well, what does that mean? Is a draft "necessary and proper" to raising an army? Is owning property for naval bases "necessary and proper?" The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing these laws, not interpreting them. That leaves the courts as the logical arbiter of the law.

[Ladybug]

And YOU get an A++ for tact, Mr. buzz_knox :rolleyes:

My "arrogance" is actually just irritation that some people believe that interpretation of laws by the courts is "illegal." Quantus was just ranting, and wrong.

I don't give a crap how educated anyone is, and I do NOT consider myself more (or even equally) competent to discuss these issues than many people on this board. I was reacting to the snide comment about "civics class." What's your excuse?

Nowhere have I said anything about the Constitution being less important than anything else... all I said is that (sometimes unfortunately) we cannot read documents like the Constitution and assume they mean what we want them to mean, or even what they logically SEEM to mean. Reading the Second Amendment, I would logically conclude that I have a right to carry a gun. However, if I were to venture out into the world - and into a kindergarten classroom - with my concealed tommy gun (:uhoh: ), I would be jailed, DESPITE what the Constitution says. I wonder why that is....

Do I think the courts go too far in interpreting laws? Sometimes, yes.
Do I think RKBA precedents suck and it's time for some new ones? YES!!!
Do I think in the meantime we're stuck with all the crappy interpretations we've been given? Yup.
Do I think some idiot in a Denver courtroom - clutching his Constitution and threatening to arrest a judge - is going to be the harbinger of change? Probably not.

[org]

Ladybug, allow me to rephrase: I'd hate to use civics or law school to justify anything.

[buzz_knox]

I don't give a crap how educated anyone is, and I do NOT consider myself more (or even equally) competent to discuss these issues than many people on this board. I was reacting to the snide comment about "civics class." What's your excuse?

Hmm. That's strange. You reacted to a comment about "civics class" yet you were the one who told Quartus to "go back to civics class."

Specifically, you stated:

quartus, you're obviously in over your head - go back to civics class before you get too bent out of shape.

My excuse as you put it, was to point out that your assertion of superior knowledge based on your attending law school was inappropriate.

Reading the Second Amendment, I would logically conclude that I have a right to carry a gun. However, if I were to venture out into the world - and into a kindergarten classroom - with my concealed tommy gun ( ), I would be jailed, DESPITE what the Constitution says. I wonder why that is....

Your logical conclusion is the true and proper one. You would be arrested because the courts have, because of ideology and political climate, allowed the wholesale infringement of the right (without reason or thought) guaranteed under the Constitution, most state constitutions, and the common law, namely the right to self-defense. The fact that you accept that infringement as just the way the world works demonstrates both why it is that way and why it will continue. Accepting a wrong does not make it right; it just makes one an accomplice in the deprivation of the right.

[Ladybug]

I can appreciate that, org :)

What I am NOT justifying is an attitute of arrogance, or an idea that I am somehow more educated or worth listening to than other people - because I don't believe that, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. There's people on this board I respect infinately more than many lawyers, doctors, professors, and other highly educated people I know.

What I WAS justifying was my statements that Quantus was incorrect in his belief that courts do not have a right to interpret the Constitution.

[Intune]

I... hate... Quantas...

Famous koala bear line. Nobody here by that name or Quantus.

[Ladybug]

I'm not asserting any superiority whatsoever. I am just stating my belief that you and Quantus are wrong - the courts DO have a legal right to interpret the law.

"Putting me in my place" by pointing out that I'm acting inappropriately and by pointing out my typos is arrogance that I don't think is justified by a legal education either.

The fact that you accept that infringement as just the way the world works demonstrates both why it is that way and why it will continue. Accepting a wrong does not make it right; it just makes one an accomplice in the deprivation of the right.

No, I don't accept it as right. But I see it for what it is, and I know that in order for things to change, people have to understand how the system works. We have to change things within the system - unless someone here is proposing that we do away with common law altogether, or perhaps that we should install a dictator who can just "fix" it. I personally think our system is pretty great - I disagree with a lot of court opinions, and I agree with even more. Rather than declaring that the Supreme Court can no longer serve its interpretative role, I believe it's time for some new interpretation.

[cuchulainn]

buzz_knox, Ladybug and Quartus,

I think you all should come to an agreement on the definition of interpret. It seems to me that you all are closer in agreement than you think and are arguing past each other based on misunderstandings of what the others mean by interpret.

For Ladybug interpret seems to mean "decide what the words mean and the writers intended."

For Quartus' interpret seems to mean "figure out a way to make the words mean what we want them to mean so we can further our social agendas."

Thus you may not be disagreeing at all, but simply having a semantic misunderstanding

++++

Ladybug,

Despite some admittedly misleading writing on Quartus' part earlier, his problem with interpretation seems to be how much, not whether.

[org]

Ladybug, I do agree with you that the courts can and should interpret the laws of the land, and even the Constitution. HOWEVER....many of the "interpretations" have been so blatently driven by ideology as to be attempts to legislate from the bench. The Bill of Rights is written in pretty plain English, and if any questions remain after being read in basic English, the writings of the authors and signatories of the Constitution pretty well explain it's true meaning. Unfortunately, many jurists actually think the Constitution is a "living" document, subject to the whims of the moment. In short, interpret, don't rewrite.

IMHO, this is the reason the liberals are so terrified of having conservative justices. The courts are the only vehicle they have to push extremist policies now that the legislative branch is increasingly reluctant to do so.

Anyway, my remark about civics class wasn't meant to be snide...I really meant it, based on what passes for civics class in today's schools.

[Ladybug]

Thank you cuchulainn - your peacemaking skills are admirable (want a job in Iraq? ha ha).

You're right - that is how I would define interpret.

I would also add, lest we forget, that (as you actually pointed out earlier re interpretation of the word "people") the courts' interpretations sometimes work in our favor. I don't agree with the attitude that we should take away judicial powers because we disagree with opinions, or we should recall elected officials because we disagree with their policies, or we should attempt stunts like arresting judges who make comments we don't like, etc. The very checks and balances and institutions provided by the Constitution are the means to bringing about change, in my ever so humble opinion, which never comes off as humble

:p

[BHPshooter]

This thread is really making my blood boil.

Some points:

Read the DOI: The only legitimate purpose of Government is to protect the rights of citizens. Not SOME rights, all of them.

The Government does not have rights. It has powers. Powers that WE THE PEOPLE gave it. That's right, WE give the gov't power, the gov't does NOT give us our Rights.

Ladybug, how long has it been since you read the bill of rights in its intirety, Preamble and all? The preamble states that it was created as a "fail safe" in case the gov't got out of hand, that certain things were not to be meddled with. The gov't has gone WAAAAY beyond that point, ignoring the second, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments.

So, as a bill of RIGHTS and not GOVERNMENT POWERS, what would that mean? Does the Constitution not say that it is the law of the land? Would that not mean that if the states didn't tow the line, that it would be illegal? That's one of the reasons the 14th was ratified. The states weren't obeying the Law of the Land. The 14th made them.

The second, in its entirety: 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.

I'm sorry, but ladybug's argument that the second only applies to the Federal Legislature is completely Constitutionally infirmed. Once again, the only LEGITIMATE purpose of ANY government, whether federal, state, or local, is to protect the rights of the citizens. The right to strap on a sidearm is a RIGHT. INALIENABLE, at that. It doesn't matter if you decide that you don't like your .357 and want to pack a howitzer, it's your right, and it is being trampled.

Now, say what you want about the guy, but he's got guts to publicly exercise his right, even if it is illegal, so openly. Now, when his right gets trampled so blatantly, it is THE JOB OF THE MILITIA to keep the government in line!!!

Of course, I don't agree with what he did after the trial, but that's a whole 'nother ball game.

I won't even get into how bad the Judiciary is overstepping their bounds.

Maybe this is a little reminder of how complacent and lazy Americans are becoming. Nobody cares about freedom anymore.

I am not ashamed to say, I CARE and if my rights were so blatantly trampled as this mans, I would come out shooting. :fire:

:cuss: tyranny.

Wes

P.S. Quartus, check your PMs.

[Ladybug]

ladybug's argument that the second only applies to the Federal Legislature is completely Constitutionally infirmed

Sheesh, how many times do I have to say it - that is not NOT NOT NOT "my" argument... that is the argument the Supreme Court made and has continually affirmed! I do not NOT NOT NOT agree with it AT ALL. :banghead:

That lowly judge in Denver, however, is bound by those Supreme Court decisions, whether he likes them or not. Don't yell at ME because you don't like the system.

[Correia]

Agreed. People please keep it calm in here or I will lock this thread down.

I like to rant against the government as much as the next person, but Ladybug is not out to ban your guns. :)

[J-Man]

Gun activist accused of threatening judge
By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News
October 21, 2003

A Denver gun advocate has been arrested on charges that he threatened a Thornton judge who sentenced him to jail on a dangerous weapon conviction.
Rick Stanley, 49, was being held without bond Monday at Adams County Jail on a police hold from Thornton. He faces two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official.
A Denver SWAT unit - along with officers from Denver police, the FBI, the Adams County Sheriff's Office and Thornton police - were involved in arresting Stanley at his home Saturday. "He was armed at the time of the arrest," said Teresa Garcia, spokeswoman for Denver police. "He was arrested after a short chase. He did try to elude the officers."
Stanley's wife, Pam Stanley, did not return a call Monday, but she asked Michael Cacioppo to comment on her behalf. Cacioppo is the publisher of the Edwards-based online political newspaper Speakout!
"I find it to be outrageous," Cacioppo said of Stanley's arrest.
Last year, Stanley ran as a Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. His main platform was support for the right to bear arms. He was arrested at least twice on weapons charges during his campaign and had his weapons confiscated. The Libertarian Party censured Stanley, saying he had violated party principles in several ways. Stanley vowed to resign from the Libertarian Party after the election to start another party.
Saturday's arrest stemmed from a Thornton case. On Sept. 2, 2002, he was arrested and charged with violating Thornton's dangerous weapons ordinance. "He was carrying a loaded .357 revolver openly on his hip at our Harvestfest, which is held at the Thornton Community Park," said Matt Barnes, spokesman for Thornton police. Stanley was found guilty of the charge at trial by Thornton Judge Charles Rose, fined $520 and sentenced to 90 days, according to Barnes. Stanley appealed the decision to the Adams County District Court, which denied it, and he was scheduled for a sentencing review hearing before Rose on Wednesday . Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant said Stanley didn't show up at the hearing. Instead, he had a a veiled threat delivered to the judge. "Essentially, he said, 'You, judge, reverse yourself or there will be a warrant issued against you,' " said Grant of the note. According to the arrest affidavit, the note demanded that Stanley's conviction be overturned, and that a $1,500 bond and Stanley's gun be returned to him. If the demands were not met, Stanley said Rose was to be charged with treason for not upholding the state constitution and that a warrant from the Mutual Defense Pact Militia would be issued against Rose. The arrest affidavit also cites postings on Stanley's Web site that seem to indicate that members of the militia would be armed and that Stanley's note to the judge was a threat.

[SteelyDan]

My, my, I see we've been racking up a lot of non-billable hours over the past day.:)

Professional pride compels me to point out that I was not wrong in stating that, if the judge had issued a pre-trial order prohibiting questions about constitutional rights, then the defense counsel acted improperly in asking such questions.

Trial judges make mistakes all the time; that's why we've got appellate courts. The proper course of conduct is to preserve the issue for appeal, and then move on.

Even more important, as a practical matter if you blatantly defy and piss off the judge, he or she will probably find a dozen ways to screw you and your client during the course of the trial, many of which probably will not be seriously reviewed on appeal. Your conduct may also piss off the appellate court, further diminishing your chances of obtaining the result you claim to want.

My clients want to know what the realistic consequences of their decisions will be. Not what I think the law should be.

[hammer4nc]

Trial judges make mistakes all the time; that's why we've got appellate courts. The proper course of conduct is to preserve the issue for appeal, and then move on.
Admittedly, the following question comes from a layman: Presumably Stanley wished to make some arguments linking 2nd amendment to his particular case. If the judge excluded said arguments from being made, and they don't make it on the trial record, how in the world can the appellate court make a ruling on something (these legal arguments) that have been specifically stricken from the record? Its my impression that appeals courts only rule on procedural errors, not retrying cases?

I guess you could reply that an appellate court would throw the whole thing out and order a new trial... how often does that happen? Wouldn't it be much more likely that the appeals court would review the trial transcript, and pretend that the issue does not exist...precisely because the trial judge excluded the arguments during the trial. So when, or how, do Stanley's muzzled arguments get a full and fair hearing?

[dtt]

We might get some new rkba case law very soon. The California opinion requested by the Supreme Court is due today for the Silveira v. Lockyer case. http://www.keepandbeararms.org/Silveira/SCtReq.asp

[Quartus]

Even more important, as a practical matter if you blatantly defy and piss off the judge, he or she will probably find a dozen ways to screw you and your client during the course of the trial, many of which probably will not be seriously reviewed on appeal.


Yup. Couldn't be more wrong, but reality. Judges who do so should do prison time. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.





So when, or how, do Stanley's muzzled arguments get a full and fair hearing?


Well, I think that's exactly the point. The purpose of the judge's instructions is to make sure that they don't.

[labgrade]

"the 2nd Amendment only applies to congress' ability to pass federal laws that infringe on RKBA, it does NOT apply to your individual right. Why do the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to individual rights? Because of the 14th Amendment. Do I like it? No. Does a lowly little municipal judge in Denver have any power to change it? No."

Having only skimmed the first page briefly, I find this post most stupid.

The 14th cannot trump the first ten. Simply put, these ARE the basis for a recognition of personal freedoms the guvmint (fed or state) ever infringe upon.

Too, CO's constitution also states (go look it up for yourself) that the right to keep and bear arms .... shall not be called into question (brief mention about no CCW - which Stanley didn't do).

According to your premise, if a court ruled that they can kill anyone, anytime, that wouldn't be a violation of the 5th?

The first are a contract with the guv & if they feel like violating whenever their whim chooses, I'd suspect so can we = "violate the contract."

Sheesh! You reall do have no clue whatso ever on the founding of this country - do you?

[Wildalaska]

I am not ashamed to say, I CARE and if my rights were so blatantly trampled as this mans, I would come out shooting.

Yep thats just what we need..

WildsighAlaska

[Ladybug]

labgrade,
I think it, if nothing else, it would be common curtesy to read all the posts in a thread before going around calling people stupid.
I would then point out that YOU are the one that has no idea what you're talking about - but then again, we've been through all this and I'm pretty tired of hashing this one out.

hammer4nc,
you are right that cases are not retried in appellate courts in that questions of evidence are not brought up again. Questions of law, however, are. For example, if someone is on trial for murder, it would be the trial court that would decide whether there was enough evidence to convict the person, etc. - that's what the jury would do. Or in the case at hand, it would be up to the judge to decide if the guy violated the law that says he cannot carry a gun. But then on appeal, the defendant can say that the questions presented to the jury, for example, applied the law incorrectly. In that sense, the appeals court has the power to look at the case again - and either reverse or affirm the earlier courts ruling, or remand it back for another trial. If someone were to challenge the constitutionality of a law, on the other hand, the case could be taken directly to the supreme court -- IF the supreme court decides they want to hear it.

[SteelyDan]

Hammer:

If either side believes that the other side intends to make arguments and present evidence about a matter that is irrelevant or otherwise legally objectionable, they may bring a motion, often weeks before the trial, asking the judge to exclude all such evidence, arguments, questions, etc. Typically, the parties will submit legal memoranda on the issue and the judge will issue a written order granting the motion, or denying it, or somewhere in between.

Once the order is issued, the party that lost the motion can ask for immediate appellate review (very rarely granted, until after the case is over), or they can ask the judge to reconsider his or her decision (I've seen this happen several times). But once you get to trial, you are best served by complying with the order, whatever it says.

After the trial and any post-trial motions are over, you can then appeal to the appellate courts. One of your primary grounds for reversal on appeal will presumably be the trial judge's ruling on the pre-trial motion. The appellate courts will have a clear record of the judge's ruling, and the reasons for it, based on the order itself.

[LawDog]

Allegations of stupidity. Veiled insults.

Lights out.

LawDog