Feds going after the states with SD laws...


PDA






CoRoMo
May 8, 2012, 05:05 PM
I have my doubts that it would greatly influence a large number of the states with these laws/protections. I have even greater doubts that such a bill will pass in the first place. But it definitely gives you the perspective of our elected officials.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/



House Democrats said Tuesday they will offer an amendment to push to overturn stand-your-ground self-defense laws in states like Florida.

The amendment, which would withhold some grants from states that have such laws, will come as part of the House's debate on the Commerce Department spending bill.

If you enjoyed reading about "Feds going after the states with SD laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mr.scott
May 8, 2012, 05:16 PM
It wouldn't stand up against the first lawsuit brought against it. They have no grounds to enforce such a law. If it spasses, every citizen in a state it effects should then have the right to not pay federal taxes.

The democrats in this country want nothing more than a subjugated populace that agrees lock step with anything they are told. The higher ups in the party want everyone except them to be poor, defenseless, and jobless.

joecil
May 8, 2012, 05:18 PM
I no doubt it won't pass the house or even get out of committee. If it did I don't think it would make it through the senate either but not as sure of the senate.

smalls
May 8, 2012, 05:20 PM
Do these politicians even read the SYG laws? Or do they just read the headlines?

CoRoMo
May 8, 2012, 05:23 PM
I know what the second word of the article is. I just ask that it not be the subject of any post made in my thread.

Please.

Thank you.

One of the lines from the article that I found astonishing was the one about '"'Shoot-first' [Self-defense] laws have already cost too many lives... deaths due to self defense have tripled' since FL's law was enacted.

:confused: So... in regards to violent crime/assaults... which life (victim vs. aggressor) would they prefer to preserve? Because we can assume that violent crime/assault often results in the end of a life or at the very least an injury. So which party to the act, could everyone agree, deserves such a result?

Kush
May 8, 2012, 05:34 PM
It wouldn't stand up against the first lawsuit brought against it. They have no grounds to enforce such a law.

They have been doing this for a while now, its the same way that they raised the drinking age to 21, if it was illegal for them to do so there would have probably been a lawsuit one of the other time they withheld money for some reason.

Frank Ettin
May 8, 2012, 05:56 PM
I know what the second word of the article is. I just ask that it not be the subject of any post made in my thread...Agreed.

We don't do political party bashing here. It's not high road. Nor do we do politics in general.

Keep this focused and respectful or it ends.

Teachu2
May 8, 2012, 07:51 PM
Do these politicians even read the SYG laws? Or do they just read the headlines?


Neither - their handlers read them biased (or even accurate) poll results so they can pander to the largest number of voting morons possible.

AZ
May 8, 2012, 08:31 PM
The democrats in this country want nothing more than a subjugated populace that agrees lock step with anything they are told. The higher ups in the party want everyone except them to be poor, defenseless, and jobless.

I am going to take the high road and not get into a political battle on a gun forum that is free of much of the internet's juvenile bickering. Sufficed to say your comment was a gross over-generalization. As well, there are many Democrats on this forum who would take great offense to your notion of all of them being anti-gun (FYI I generally vote Republican). To dispel that notion stance on gun rights is almost entirely regional, which accounts for why Harry Reid has a considerably better 2nd Amendment record than a Massachusetts boy like Mitt.

bikerdoc
May 8, 2012, 09:20 PM
Stand your ground is aprinciple based in english common law and backed up by a ton of case law. I dont see going much beyond some sound bites

Neverwinter
May 8, 2012, 10:26 PM
One of the lines from the article that I found astonishing was the one about '"'Shoot-first' [Self-defense] laws have already cost too many lives... deaths due to self defense have tripled' since FL's law was enacted.

:confused: So... in regards to violent crime/assaults... which life (victim vs. aggressor) would they prefer to preserve? Because we can assume that violent crime/assault often results in the end of a life or at the very least an injury. So which party to the act, could everyone agree, deserves such a result?
If the attacker is losing their life at the hands of the saved victim, then the numbers would come out as a wash instead of a three-fold increase.

The article doesn't explicitly mention the possibility of there being unjustified homicides being miscategorized as justified homicides. We wouldn't have even known about Martin if not for the press and the leaks from inside the department.

In the case of laws that specifically apply financial damages, it further disincentivizes the proper investigation because overworked and understaffed police departments not only take the loss of investigative resources but damages for performing police work. Then again, that is the goal of the legal system to avoid putting the innocent person in jail at the expense of letting the guilty go free.

Frank Ettin
May 8, 2012, 10:39 PM
Neither - their handlers read them biased (or even accurate) poll results so they can pander to the largest number of voting morons possible. Whether or not your neighbors, co-workers, and people in your community who don't vote for the politicians you'd favor are morons is perhaps debatable. But as long as you insist on demeaning and denigrating them, you'll have little or no chance to change the ways they think, or vote.

And of course politicians pander to the majority. That's how they get and stay elected.

It's fashionable to blame politicians. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep and expand our gun rights needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. We need to engage and include as many of them as we can. Calling them morons won't help.

Stand your ground is aprinciple based in english common law and backed up by a ton of case law....Standing your ground in your home is a fundamental principle under Common Law and well supported historically in case law. But places other than your home or place of business -- not so much. And civil immunity is also a fairly new development.

bushmaster1313
May 8, 2012, 11:16 PM
It wouldn't stand up against the first lawsuit brought against it. They have no grounds to enforce such a law.

I think you are wrong.

Feds can withhold Federal money for all sorts of reasons, like withholding Federal Highway money if a state does not make 55 MPH the speed limit or 21 the drinking age.

beatledog7
May 8, 2012, 11:31 PM
The ability to withhold funds does not equate to grounds to make and enforce a law. The Federal government has strong-armed states into doing its will many times, and every time it's been a violation of Constitutional federal powers.

Trouble is, the states are so dependent on Federal $ that they see themselves as having little choice.

I say, regarding state assemblies and governors, it's time for them to grow a spine.

bushmaster1313
May 8, 2012, 11:34 PM
and every time it's been a violation of Constitutional federal powers.

Not so, Federal Government does not need to give the states money, and can put restrictions on its distribution.

"If you don't like my rules don't play in my game."

JohnKSa
May 8, 2012, 11:38 PM
The "stand your ground laws" are more accurately described as "innocent until proven guilty laws".

In the absence of a stand your ground law, the burden of proof rests on the defender to prove that he did everything he could to avoid shooting. Basically he was assumed to be guilty until he could prove his innocence.

The stand your ground laws don't prevent the state from prosecuting someone for shooting when deadly force is unnecessary (illegal), it just puts the burden of proof on the state to prove that the defender had other reasonable alternatives to shooting but chose to use deadly force instead.

Frank Ettin
May 8, 2012, 11:43 PM
...The Federal government has strong-armed states into doing its will many times, and every time it's been a violation of Constitutional federal powers...Not until a court says so.

Neverwinter
May 8, 2012, 11:52 PM
The "stand your ground laws" are more accurately described as "innocent until proven guilty laws".

This is an incomplete picture, except in the cases where there is no civil immunity clause.

yinyangdc
May 8, 2012, 11:59 PM
Not until a court says soThere is a difference between what is in the constitution and operational law based on supreme court decisions.

Frank Ettin
May 9, 2012, 12:12 AM
There is a difference between what is in the constitution and operational law based on supreme court decisions. Which means exactly what in the real world?

Here's the deal. The opinion of a court on matters of law, such as whether or not a law is constitutional, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such things and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

ohgrady
May 9, 2012, 12:38 AM
What a difference 5 hours can make.................


http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/democrats-withdraw-trayvon-amendment/

stickhauler
May 9, 2012, 01:22 AM
Kinda figured that would happen because they ain't got a shot in hell of getting it passed. The example of raising the drinking age to 21 was cited as a issue they dealt with where no court struck it down. Guess what, there ain't no right to drink listed in the Bill of Rights!

beatledog7
May 9, 2012, 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatledog7
...The Federal government has strong-armed states into doing its will many times, and every time it's been a violation of Constitutional federal powers...

Response from Mr. Ettin: Not until a court says so.

Frank, I will agree that in a legal sense a law is not unconstitutional until the court system so rules. That doesn't change the fact that we can all read the law and compare what it requires of us to what the Constitution allows the Federal government to require of its people.

A huge part of the problem is that both the states and the people have become so accustomed to allowing federal officials to overstep their Constitutional boundaries that we rarely even question them anymore. And they know it. Apparently this one may have been an exception.

There is a difference between what is in the constitution and operational law based on supreme court decisions.

And when this difference exists, what is the supreme law of the United States? Does any federal oath of office include a promise to support and defend case law?

alsaqr
May 9, 2012, 08:31 AM
The federal government has tied federal funding to all kinds of stuff including raising the legal age to drink booze to 21. The states have become so addicted to federal money they can't wean themselves off the dole.

Colonel
May 9, 2012, 09:04 AM
Do these politicians even read the SYG laws? Or do they just read the headlines?

What makes you think they even know how to read?

X-Rap
May 9, 2012, 09:42 AM
I think it is important to seek out those who favored this amendment no matter the party, house or senate, or administration official. I hope some 2a org. will publish this info.

Carl N. Brown
May 9, 2012, 10:12 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

House to vote on Trayvon amendment
By Stephen Dinan
May 8, 2012, 04:37PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/democrats-withdraw-trayvon-amendment/

Democrats withdraw Trayvon amendment
By Stephen Dinan
May 8, 2012, 09:11PM

Somebody realized that "Democrat National Party--protecting criminals from armed citizens since 1968" would not be a good slogan for going into the national elections.

Homicide is down in Florida.

After passage of Stand-Your-Ground and Castle Doctrine laws, a larger percentage of homicides are being listed in police reports as Self Defense.

Even so, the adjudication of homicides usually occurs at the prosecutor, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury,or appellate court level, not in a police report.

If those upset by a trebling in police reports of justifiable homicide find justifiable homicide so upsetting, they better not look at projections of adjudication of homicides as self defense by researchers like Gary Kleck, Marvin Wolfgang, Jeffery Jentzen and a handful of others.

Justifiable homicide is the most under reported statistic in the criminal justice system, and as SYG and CD laws legitimize reporting SD, the reports will go up even as the numbers actually go down.

Hugo
May 9, 2012, 10:37 AM
De-elect any politician dumb enough to support this crap. Vote in every election you are registered to!

Carl N. Brown
May 9, 2012, 11:22 AM
Following the links, Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota were the Democrats who offered the legislation. They backed off "after learning it was likely to be ruled out of order under the evening's rules for debate" but Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota, "said he will still try to force a debate" in the future.

Sky
May 9, 2012, 11:30 AM
It's fashionable to blame politicians. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep and expand our gun rights needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. We need to engage and include as many of them as we can. Calling them morons won't help.


Frank that was well written and thought; Salute!

Frank Ettin
May 9, 2012, 11:47 AM
...I will agree that in a legal sense a law is not unconstitutional until the court system so rules. That doesn't change the fact that we can all read the law and compare what it requires of us to what the Constitution allows the Federal government to require of its people.... The problem is that everyone can read the Constitution, and they reach a whole lot of different conclusion about what it means and how it applies to particular issues.

Your neighbor has as much right as you do to read the Constitution and form an opinion about what it means. If he has an opinion that differs from yours, what makes yours any more correct than his?

andrewstorm
May 9, 2012, 12:57 PM
Is A statutory right.In many states,anything less is deprivation of rights under color of law,and a constitutional tort,SUE,sue, and SUE EVERYBODY IN SIGHT,(GOV)

rdhood
May 9, 2012, 01:01 PM
Even though it is withdrawn, the Democrats have shown their hand. Like the whole EPA/Lead ammunition thread, this will be a new tactic for Dems to push in the future. Mark my words: this is not over. They will pursue this avenue of gun restriction again.

beatledog7
May 9, 2012, 01:28 PM
The problem is that everyone can read the Constitution, and they reach a whole lot of different conclusion about what it means and how it applies to particular issues.

Your neighbor has as much right as you do to read the Constitution and form an opinion about what it means. If he has an opinion that differs from yours, what makes yours any more correct than his?

I don't claim to have special interpretive powers. I don't infer any meaning beyond what the Constitution says and what the people who wrote it say they had in mind when they wrote it.

I also apply logic: Why would the founders specify limitations on the Federal government if they meant for its power to be unlimited?

Frank Ettin
May 9, 2012, 02:59 PM
I don't claim to have special interpretive powers. I don't infer any meaning beyond what the Constitution says and what the people who wrote it say they had in mind when they wrote it...And so does everyone else. Folks doing exactly the same thing come to different conclusions. And of course, unless you have some ability to read the minds of the now long dead Founding Fathers, you can't know for sure what was on their minds. You can only draw inferences from the historical record -- as do others, often to differing conclusions.

Your opinion of what the Constitution says or how it applies, is essentially meaningless. What really matters is what the courts do.

...I also apply logic: Why would the founders specify limitations on the Federal government if they meant for its power to be unlimited?First, you don't understand what logic is. Logic is a process for examining data and forming conclusions based on that examination of data. For those conclusions to be meaning, both the data must be correct and complete and the process must be sound.

Second, the question isn't whether the powers of the federal government are limited or unlimited. The question is whether or exactly how those limitations apply in particular circumstances.

beatledog7
May 9, 2012, 05:22 PM
Frank,

Of course we're all subject to court decisions. As a practical matter, we have to live within an out-of-control Federal system, but only as long as we fail to change it.

Two points I must address, now that you've resorted to insulting me in a public forum:

First, I don't read minds; I read words. The people who drafted and argued about ratification of the Constitution wrote extensively about their views regarding it.

Second, your definition of logic is flawed; the words you used are closer to a definition of analysis or interpretation than they are to logic.

I invite everyone to consider: What does a stop sign mean? It means stop. Always. Every time. No interpretation required or desired.
Whenever we reach a stop sign and do anything other than stop, we're in violation. We might commit dozens of "rolling stops" and never get a ticket, but the violation is nonetheless committed. We don't need a policeman to tell us what we're supposed to do.

Whenever the Federal government involves itself in matters that are specifically left by the Constitution to the several states or to the people, it is in violation. It is far too rarely held accountable, but the violation is nonetheless committed. You don't need a court decision to tell you that "shall not" means "shall not."

I'm done here.

Explorer1
May 9, 2012, 06:58 PM
More politcal dung following an emotional high-profile case.

Course we can't bet too heavily on how much they may support other criminals given the group of folks we are talking about.

Frank Ettin
May 9, 2012, 08:28 PM
Of course we're all subject to court decisions. As a practical matter, we have to live within an out-of-control Federal system, but only as long as we fail to change it.Of course your view that the federal court system is out of control is not necessarily shared by everyone either. It seems that one faction or another is most commonly claiming that the courts are out of control just after a court issues a ruling that faction doesn't like. That was pretty much the reaction of the Brady Campaign after Heller and again after McDonald.

One strength of our system is that is does allow for change. If you think that some change to the federal judicial system is needed, you have the opportunity to try.

...I don't read minds; I read words. The people who drafted and argued about ratification of the Constitution wrote extensively about their views regarding it...Yes, and a lot of people have read and studied those historical sources and come up with a variety of conclusions on various points. Indeed, even the Founding Fathers disagreed with each other on various points. The Bill of Rights is the product of one of those fundamental disagreements.

...your definition of logic is flawed; the words you used are closer to a definition of analysis or interpretation than they are to logic...Really?

From Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/): Logic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic): 1. a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference* and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning….


Analysis (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analysis): 1.: separation of a whole into its component parts…
2…
3...
4 a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations b : a statement of such an analysis...
5 a : a method in philosophy of resolving complex expressions into simpler or more basic ones
b : clarification of an expression by an elucidation of its use in discourse…

Interpretation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interpretation): 1: the act or the result of interpreting : explanation…
2: a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style...
3: a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information…
_____


*Inference (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inference): 1: the act or process of inferring (see infer): as
a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former
b : the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty

2 : something that is inferred; especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence

3 : the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring...


...I invite everyone to consider: What does a stop sign mean? It means stop. Always. Every time. No interpretation required or desired... But we're here dealing with matters that are a good deal more complex. Also, sometimes running a stop-sign can be the right thing to do, e. g., if necessary to clear the way for an emergency vehicle.

Frank Ettin
May 9, 2012, 08:30 PM
Enough thread drift.

However, real point of the foregoing is that if one doesn't like a proposed law, glibly dismissing it as unconstitutional is pretty meaningless.

gym
May 11, 2012, 02:17 PM
Once you gear people to allow a specific act, it's almost impossible to recind it. Most permit holdes since Jeb Bush signed it into law, only know the procedure for dealing with an armed trespass, as the way it has been implamented for the pased several years. To undo this would be a nightmare. Legally and otherwise, as they have been trained to follow the law the way it has been, untill now. My feeling is that you would have more confusion, thus many shootings in which the shooter /homeowner, didn't realise the law had been changed, or how to apply the new revised law,"whatever it was. This would only cause more problems than the politicians realize, as it is more difficult to un-teach something, both mentally and physically.

hso
May 14, 2012, 08:12 AM
There wasn't much chance of the thing getting anywhere and it proved to not even get off the blocks, much less stumble and fall to the wayside in the race.

With the legislation not even getting past conception what's the lesson learned here?

I suggest that there's a general shift in political behavior in Congress from the days when any extreme anti amendment or legislation could get well down the track before it was set aside as too easily challenged in court to today where we see these things killed before any energy is wasted on them.

Frank Ettin
May 14, 2012, 10:49 AM
I also think that this has become a hot enough topic that a some key politicians would rather not see this become an open fight.

Since there apparently were procedural difficulties with the introduction of the bill, the supporters were able to back away while still being able to take credit for trying.

C0untZer0
May 14, 2012, 10:57 AM
It's not just happening at the federal level. This is one issue that is at the center of a philosophical debate, and the laws are being attacked at different levels:

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/04/activist-challenges-georgia-no-duty-to-retreat-law.php

gc70
May 14, 2012, 11:26 AM
There were philosophical debates when the SYG laws were passed and increased certainty in the ability of people to defend themselves was the winner. Massive media coverage of recent events has given the losers of those debates a platform from which to again raise their objections. While the losers may grouse and rail about SYG laws, there is no critical mass of public opinion or political momentum supporting a reduction in the ability of people to defend themselves.

BBQLS1
May 14, 2012, 11:31 AM
Do these politicians even read the SYG laws? Or do they just read the headlines?


Do they even read the laws they do pass?

C0untZer0
May 14, 2012, 11:50 AM
There were philosophical debates when the SYG laws were passed and increased certainty in the ability of people to defend themselves was the winner. Massive media coverage of recent events has given the losers of those debates a platform from which to again raise their objections. While the losers may grouse and rail about SYG laws, there is no critical mass of public opinion or political momentum supporting a reduction in the ability of people to defend themselves.

^ yep.

An issue that will always be with us concerning stand your ground or duty to retreat will be that situations involving these laws will always be second-guessed by opponents to each law.

No set of laws, no system is going to be perfect. We know our justice system is not perfect, however, we've generally agreed as a society that it is a greater evil to wrongly punish an innocent man than to allow a guilty one to remain free. Our justice system is skewed to minimize the number of false positives (finding an innocent person guilty), and the cost of that is a higher number of false negatives (finding the guilty innocent).

Stand your ground versus duty to retreat sits at the heart of an ideological debate. People who oppose stand your ground laws are perfectly capable of living with a high number of people who will lose their lives at the hands of criminals and they are comfortable with incarcerating people who use firearms to defend themselves. When people are robed, killed or raped, these opponent to SYG laws express sadness at the tragic and senseless violence - but they don't feel outrage and anger. They're willing to live with crime as a fact of life. What sparks outrage in them is when a person uses a gun against an assailant severely wounding or killing the assailant. Then they are outraged. That to them is something intolerable that they cannot live with.

There are people who believe that individuals cannot be trusted, that they run amok. But the actions of groups - mitigated by a group decision making process, can be trusted and yield a better result.

It's about power being aggragated at the individual level or power being aggragated at the societal level.

Some SYG laws limits what a society can do to an individual by requiring probable cause before an arrest.

The people who don't like the idea of empowered individuals really hate that provision because it makes it very difficult for society embodied by government to enforce society's will upon the individual whom they disagree with. It makes it difficult for them to punish a shooter they don't like.

On the other side of the debate, people who oppose “duty to retreat” laws feel that it is intolerable that even one person should lose their life at the hands of an attacker because they opted not to defend themselves for fear of legal repercussions, or they attempted to retreat when they had the opportunity to win the conflict and died in the process of retreating.

Two groups in society that look at this same event very differently – one group is able to tolerate it and the other group is not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Feds going after the states with SD laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!