dogtown tom
Member
Nope.Has Montana been successful with some basic type of resistance to federal enforcement of some gun issue?
I can't remember the issue at all.
Nope.Has Montana been successful with some basic type of resistance to federal enforcement of some gun issue?
I can't remember the issue at all.
Yeah, no matter how long TN has had that in their state constitution it isn't going to stop anything. Tennessee requires FFL's to use TICS, pay a fee for each firearm background check AND the state records the firearm serial #.............so much for your state resources.Tennessee has long had a law that Tennessee law enforcement resources will not be used in enforce a federal law that violates Article I Declaration of Rights of the Tennessee state constitution.That includes article the right to keep and bear arms, Article I Section 26, which has been interpreted by state courts, state attorney general opinions, and statements of legislative intent, as protecting self-defense, military preparedness marksmanship training, defense of livestock from predators, hunting, recreational shooting, collection of curios, and all other traditional and lawful purposes.
So we should just obey unconstitutional laws that ban Constitutionally protected firearms. That is why we are in this mess.
How you and I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights is immaterial. It's how the Federal courts interpret....which is what the Constitution says they are to do.So we should just obey unconstitutional laws that ban Constitutionally protected firearms. That is why we are in this mess.
I just have to point out if the above statement is true, you can’t make the statement below.How you and I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights is immaterial. It's how the Federal courts interpret..
...which is what the Constitution says they are to do.
Well I respect you and you are most likely alot smarter than I amHow you and I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights is immaterial. It's how the Federal courts interpret....which is what the Constitution says they are to do.
So we should just obey unconstitutional laws that ban Constitutionally protected firearms. That is why we are in this mess.
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...
...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.....
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality...
......Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...
If a Federal law exceeds its mandate, is it a constitutional law? The answer should be negative, even if SCOTUS incorrectly ruled.
This is a challenge to the corrupted version of the Commerce Clause created by SCOTUS in the 1930’s. It was never intended to reach into states and control state action. For example, how a surgeon does surgery was never intended to be controlled by the Federal government merely because some tools were sold across state lines.
People have forgotten that the states DELEGATED limited powers to the Feds and not the other way around. Controlling the internals of state commerce is not one of those powers. Yet, the gun control act of 1968 does exactly that by abusing that clause.
Everyone mistakenly believes that Federal law trumps state law. This is not true. Federal law only trumps state law in the areas delegated to the Federal government. Once again, this means the Feds have no power to control the internals of state commerce except through the corrupt SCOTUS decision. I believe any STATE supreme court can nullify Federal overreach into its state as related to this topic. WHETHER a court would do that is a different discussion
“Interpret” is not the same as “re-interpret to support an agenda”. Reading comprehension is not rocket science, but is now made to be so. If someone “interprets” some part of the constitution to be pro slavery, for example, it still doesn’t make it right. Too much common sense and obviousness is deferred to “experts”.
None of that is up to you. in real life in the real world what the Constitution means and how it applies is finally up to the federal courts.
Yes, In “real life”, its true that we have allowed that ideal to be compromised. But there’s nothing wrong with striving for an ideal, simply because “real life” is composed of those who compromise the ideal in pursuit of their agenda. Still doesn’t make it right.
....the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated....
....If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, ...
All I’m saying is just because a court says so, it doesn’t make it right. That’s seems clear because courts have opposing rulings all the time. They also have had bad rulings. Dred Scott vs Sanford being an example (I hope) of a bad ruling. Some things are just not that complicated, and some things are pretty easy to interpret on the face of it. We just make it complicated, or it’s made to be so because people wish to change things for an agenda, and will use their position to make it so. There should always be disagreement and pushback against that.So exactly how do you plan to strive for the ideal? And in the meantime, you won't get anywhere mistaking what you want for what is real.
Also, why do you think it has to be your idea? Not everyone shares your vision, and those who do not share your vision still have rights.
See Madison in Federalist No. 39:
And Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
It makes it real, and the rulings of the courts affect real life and influence future court decision....All I’m saying is just because a court says so, it doesn’t make it right....
Dred Scott needs to be evaluated based on the law at the time. The fact that from the perspective of 21st Century values it was repugnant, doesn't mean it was bad law at the time.... They also have had bad rulings. Dred Scott vs Sanford being an example (I hope) of a bad ruling....
...Some things are just not that complicated, and some things are pretty easy to interpret on the face of it....
State nullification does not exist as an actual legal power.
Free states either neglected to enforce the fugitive slave act or actually passed laws that nullified the fugitive slave act within their borders & let their state authorities arrest slave catchers for kidnapping.
(Locally we have plaques commemorating the local support of Underground Railroad before and during the Civil War.)
Added: I would suggest that preemptively deciding that the Democrats are going to ban gun ownership immediately ... is based on Democrat candidates' campaign promises. And the will of those who voted them in.
No, tyrannizing others is not me.It makes it real, and the rulings of the courts affect real life and influence future court decision.
Dred Scott need to be evaluated based on the law at the time. The fact that from the perspective of 21st Century values it was repugnant, doesn't mean it was bad law at the time.
Courts make decisions based on the facts, and the then applicable law and precedent. That could lead to what to some os an unsatisfactory result. But that doesn't make the court's decision wrong or bad.
And sometimes one's notion of what's good or bad is heavily influenced by whose ox is gored. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.
Perhaps to you. What about those who disagree with you? Perhaps you're not really opposed to tyranny, as long as it's your brand of tyranny.
Arizona's "Constitutional Carry" law was only the repeal of existing laws requiring permission from the government to exercise your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.You don't need a "Constitutional carry law" when you don't have any state firearms law other than those prohibiting possession by felons or using a firearm in the commission of a crime. Less laws, better government.
This reminds me of what a registered engineer once said in a meeting: "Never post anything on-line that you may not want to defend in court."suggesting that one disobey actual laws is not for THR. Announcing you will do that in a public forum is not the best idea.
State nullification does not exist as an actual legal power. The Southern states raised that question starting in the 1830's, when they did not like Federal tariffs on foreign imports. They was raised it again, in an ultimate form, in 1861 when they preemptively decided that Lincoln was going to end slavery immediately. It was settled once and for all in 1865.