CCW Holder Charged with Murder

[Phetro]

I must say, I am in 100% agreement with Hawkeye, who has a real knack at getting to the heart of the issue of the Constitution and its meaning.

The Federalist Papers clearly spell out the intentions of the Framers at the time as well. These could easily be consulted by any court before a ruling, but they are not. They provide a blueprint of the Framers' ideas and opinions more clearly than perhaps any volume ever written--however, they are not--like the Constitution--in line with modern beliefs about individual rights and the limitations of government powers.

Putting all of the power in the hands of people who sit on a court for life and are only impeached under the most extreme circumstances imaginable is the height of foolishness. We have turned our liberties over to nine elites, who base their opinions not on the Constitution, but upon the past decisions of previous elites. Government has become a self-preserving mechanism--not for the People, but for itself whenever it pleases.

 

[Erebus]

/stands and applauds Mike and Phetro

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Federalist Papers clearly spell out the intentions of the Framers at the time as well. These could easily be consulted by any court before a ruling, but they are not. They provide a blueprint of the Framers' ideas and opinions more clearly than perhaps any volume ever written--however, they are not--like the Constitution--in line with modern beliefs about individual rights and the limitations of government powers.

The Federalist Papers put out at the time of the Constitution were propaganda by the Federalists designed to overcome the objections of the Antifederalists.

You can't simply quote the Federalist papers and say that is the end of the debate; because:

1) The Federalists were only one side of the two groups that formed the Constitution. If I quoted the Republican Party Platform and said that was clearly the intent of all of our government, that would be a bit disingenuous on my part.

2) Not all of the Federalists agreed on any given subject and several of them made direct decisions in government that plainly and clearly contradicted part of the Federalist papers (look at John Marshall's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland and then compare it to the Federalist papers discussing the Tenth Amendment).

3) Whose opinion do we follow when I have four different Federalists saying four different things? Do the Federalist Papers get more credibility than these other recorded comments? Why?

4) Some of the "contemporary" comments of the Founding Fathers were recorded at a much later date. Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech was based on the 42yr. old recollections of people who were at the original speech and wasn't published until 1817. How much weight do we give documents like that?

Finally, the court does give enormous weight to the Federalist Papers and it does regularly quote them in decisions, especially in issues where there is not already a large body of rulings by the Court.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Bart, in the words (addressed by him, in a private letter, to George Washington) of James Madison himself, The Father of the Constitution, the purpose of The Federalist Papers was to "present a full discussion of the merits of the proposed constitution in all its relations." I think it perhaps carries a bit more actual weight in the area of Constitutional interpretation than you're comfortable admitting.

 

[Michael Courtney]

The Federalist Papers put out at the time of the Constitution were propaganda by the Federalists designed to overcome the objections of the Antifederalists.

You can't simply quote the Federalist papers and say that is the end of the debate;

You are right, but the Federalist papers are useful (along with other contemporary writings of the founding fathers), because they do help to define the range of possible meanings in the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution does grant the Supreme Court interpretational authority, but it only makes sense to restrict possible interpretations to meanings that could have been intended by the authors at the time.

When the Supremes give the constitutional a meaning that could not possibly have been intended by the authors, they have overstepped their constitutional authority.

Michael Courtney

 

[dustind]

So where did CCWers band together in this thread? I didn't see any posts to that effect. No circling the SUVs here.

Do you really want to compare the level of defensiveness of cops to CCWers? It would not be too hard (but it would be a big waste of time) to start comparing quotes on this forum. I bet way more CCWers would be happy to state that a fellow CCWer should be locked up for a given situation than cops would. To be fair, most CCWers have less of a sense of kinship to each other than cops do.

Also cop bashing vs JBT(I am not referring to most cops here) apologist arguments are not part of the same topic as wether CCWers are right or wrong because cop bashers and CCwers are not always the same people. You can easily be one without the other.

 

[Travis Lee]

I don't understand why there is even a squawk here.

A CCW gets busted for murder, a cop gets busted for something else....

SO WHAT?

What does this have to do with you and me?

If we hear that some criminal is left handed are we going to have all the left-handed people forming the Southpaw Liberation Front, and marching around in left handed circles demanding the release of their "brothers"?

Is everyone such a sheep that you choose up loyalties based on a CCW permit, or a badge? And not even concerned with particulars of cases which come to our attention?

Is there a single CCW here who REALLY wants to defend a murderer, if that is the way it shakes out?

Is there a single police officer who REALLY wants to defend a murderer?

sheesh

--Travis--

 

[Manedwolf]

The fact that it's the FIRST such recorded incident definitely say something about how many CCW holders don't commit crimes.

St. Louis is one of those cites where the daily bodycount of gunshot victims could be a rolling number on the corner of the news screen, illegal-possession sorts and other criminals doing most of the shooting...so one and only one? That's not bad.

 

[Smurfslayer]

are we going to have all the left-handed people forming the Southpaw Liberation Front, and marching around in left handed circles demanding the release of their "brothers"?

You weren't at the last meeting?

 

[Baron Holbach4]

I wonder what kind of arguments we would be getting if the article that Jeff posted had a slightly different twist:

Imagine if the accused CCW holder was also a COP. He would be off-duty outside his home state but able to carry concealed with a permit on a reciprocal basis. Would there be any basis for even conducting a CCW vs. LEO thread?

 

[Gordon Fink]

Under that standard, there are no free nations left on the planet.…

That is entirely correct.

~G. Fink

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bart, in the words (addressed by him, in a private letter, to George Washington) of James Madison himself, The Father of the Constitution, the purpose of The Federalist Papers was to "present a full discussion of the merits of the proposed constitution in all its relations."

OK, point me to the Federalist Papers written by Antifederalists then.

I think it perhaps carries a bit more actual weight in the area of Constitutional interpretation than you're comfortable admitting.

A Constitutional scholar AND a mind reader! A rare combination to be sure... Since you know what I am comfortable admitting, you must have also known that I would ask you to answer some of the questions that I posted that you ignored in your response. You might also want to read that last line of the post again since you seem to be confused about my sentiments on the issue.

In other words, the Constitution does grant the Supreme Court interpretational authority, but it only makes sense to restrict possible interpretations to meanings that could have been intended by the authors at the time.

What does the Court do when the authors interpret the meanings differently though? After all easy cases that clearly contradict the meaning of every single author of the Constitution don't make it to the Supreme Court level. The easy decisions are usually long gone by the point you have reached the Supreme Court...

If the intentions of the Framers are spelled out as clearly as Phetro claims, why do I have to read so many cases where both the majority and dissent are citing the Federalist Papers as evidence of why they are right?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Roberts, thanks for the link to the U.S. Marshall piece. It looks to me when I read parts of it that they created some bailiffs to sit in court, and serve writs and enforce precepts, sort of like a sheriff in a county. The feds don't have sheriffs.

It sort of makes me, a dumba$$ed country boy who still watches Andy reruns at 11:30 am before the noon news, think that these marshall guys are working for the court. Somehow or other, I had the impression that today's present .gov leo is working in the executive branch. You know, like the FBI?

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0402.htm

is a link to the piece I read about cops being constitutional. And a little snip.

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Uniformed police officers are the most visible element of America's criminal justice system. Their numbers have grown exponentially over the past century and now stand at hundreds of thousands nationwide.1 Police expenses account for the largest segment of most municipal budgets and generally dwarf expenses for fire, trash, and sewer services.2 Neither casual observers nor learned authorities regard the sight of hundreds of armed, uniformed state agents on America's roads and street corners as anything peculiar — let alone invalid or unconstitutional.

Yet the dissident English colonists who framed the United States Constitution would have seen this modern 'police state' as alien to their foremost principles. Under the criminal justice model known to the Framers, professional police officers were unknown.3 The general public had broad law enforcement powers and only the executive functions of the law (e.g., the execution of writs, warrants and orders) were performed by constables or sheriffs (who might call upon members of the community for assistance).4 Initiation and investigation of criminal cases was the nearly exclusive province of private persons.

And, yes, there are the antifederalist papers. I haven't read them since I think they have fallen out of favor as a result of ol' Honest Abe destroying state's rights.

Finally, if you are serious and cannot see that this country is in decline into a police state, it makes me real sad.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

Initiation and investigation of criminal cases was the nearly exclusive province of private persons.

I would appreciate any guidance to research this area further, especially anecdotal evidence. The above quote runs counter to the way the law is enforced today.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Maybe you should look at the debate of the founding fathers. They discussed their interpretations of the proper delegation of police powers in several spots. If they are discussing police powers, that would seem to indicate the existence of police.

Not necessarily. What we think of as "the police" actually represents a very small subset of the totality of what is legally considered the police power of the state(s). For example, zoning regulations and building codes fall under the general umbrella of "police powers," but except in rare instances you don't find uniformed patrol officers out enforcing zoning regulations and/or building codes.

The term "police power" refers to the general authority of the government to regulate personal behavior. It is not limited to discussion of guys in blue uniforms with badges and guns.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What CCW and Hawkmoon said.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

* If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Leave us not be misled. The federalist papers were in fact a bunch of propaganda and lies to get the people to accept the new constitution.

The antifederalists were trying to get the people to vote against. Together, they represent a written debate published in the newspapers of the day.

Now I wonder how judges can use the federalist papers as parts of their understanding a constitutional issue, while at the same time ignoring the opposite point of view of an antifederalist.

Maybe somebody out there who is a constitutional scholar and not just an Andy Watcher like me would like to sound off on whether the piece quoted above is

truth or poetry

 

[cropcirclewalker]

A little antifederalist lingo.....snip

http://www.guncite.com/journals/haladopt.html

B. Anti-Federalist Fears: The People Disarmed, A Select Militia

Among the anti-federalist spokesmen, the great fear was that without protection by a bill of rights, creation of a select militia or standing army would result in the disarming of the whole people as militia and the consequent oppression of the populace. This fear had been expressed by the prediction of Oliver Ellsworth in the Federal Convention that the creation of "a select militia ... would be followed by a ruinous declension of the great body of the militia."[18] John DeWitt contended: "It is asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen."[19] DeWitt predicted that Congress "at their pleasure may arm or disarm all or any part (p.19)of the freemen of the United States, so that when their army is sufficiently numerous, they may put it out of the power of the freemen militia of America to assert and defend their liberties...."[20]

Once again...........

Truth or Poetry?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Truth in both cases. Notice that the Founders assumed that a continued threat of secession from the union, i.e., of States seceding from the union under the Constitution, would work as an additional check on the usurpation and consolidation of undelegated powers by the Federal Government. Naturally, this requires an armed populous.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Now I wonder how judges can use the federalist papers as parts of their understanding a constitutional issue, while at the same time ignoring the opposite point of view of an antifederalist.

Actually, the Court quotes pretty liberally from the historical record and often looks to it. As I mentioned earlier, I've read several cases where both the majority opinion and the dissent are quoting the Federalist Papers and other historical records at each other to justify their opinion.

All of which goes to my original point that has been largely ignored - the historical record isn't quite as clear as you, or The Real Hawkeye have suggested in this thread. You quote selectively from speeches that you approve of while ignoring contrary opinions from people who also founded this country, signed the Constitution, established the original government, etc.

The Tenth Amendment clearly says that the rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States. Yet in McCulloch v. Maryland we have Chief Justice (Revolutionary War Veteran and Federalist) John Marshall saying that the states aren't entitled to any rights that they didn't have prior to the creation of the United States and so cannot tax the national bank.

So if I am on the court and trying to decide a case, which Federalist do I follow to determine the correct interpretation? Do I give any weight to people who didn't even want the Constitution to exist and their arguments against it? I get the impression from the writing here that several of you regard this as a pretty clear cut and easy decision - and I don't think that is the case at all.

What CCW and Hawkmoon said.

Since they didn't answer my questions either, I take it you are declining to answer my questions and will continue to spout your opinion without supporting it with fact?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The Tenth Amendment clearly says that the rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States. Yet in McCulloch v. Maryland we have Chief Justice (Revolutionary War Veteran and Federalist) John Marshall saying that the states aren't entitled to any rights that they didn't have prior to the creation of the United States and so cannot tax the national bank.

Couple of problems with your statement here. Firstly the Tenth Amendment says no such thing. It speaks of powers, not rights, which are qualitatively distinct concepts, often in opposition to one-another. Secondly, the fact that States have no new powers, as a result of the US Constitution is in no way contradictory to the Tenth Amendment, nor is it unexpected. Why would it need new powers from a document establishing only the powers of the Federal Government, especially when it's powers are already "numerous and indefinite," according to Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and according to the Tenth Amendment, while the Federal Government's powers are "few and defined ... to be exercised principally on external objects?" Your point escapes me.

And, what was your question again?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Since they didn't answer my questions either, I take it you are declining to answer my questions and will continue to spout your opinion without supporting it with fact?

Mr. Roberts, I was unaware that I had failed to answer your questions. I went back and made a collection. I hope this will suffice.

If the U.S. ever does decline into a police state, one of the first things that will have to happen is an us v. them attitude where the police no longer see themselves as citizens. Do you think your comments, even if they were justified, help or hurt that goal?

Is this a trick question? I have already stated that we are descending. My comments are mine. Yours are yours. If I state that the sky is blue will that help or hurt the fact that the sky is blue. Is it a goal?

3) Whose opinion do we follow when I have four different Federalists saying four different things? Do the Federalist Papers get more credibility than these other recorded comments? Why?

I thought I made it clear previously that the federalists were a bunch trying to con the citizenry into a powerful central .gov. The anti-federalists feared a too powerful central .gov. Thus by definition.......all 4 federalists are wrong.

4) Some of the "contemporary" comments of the Founding Fathers were recorded at a much later date. Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech was based on the 42yr. old recollections of people who were at the original speech and wasn't published until 1817. How much weight do we give documents like that?

I don't know how I could answer that and even if I could who would listen. If you need an answer, 45 percent.

OK, point me to the Federalist Papers written by Antifederalists then.

Unless this is a clever rhetorical trick question, the anti-federalists would be writing the anti-federalist papers. Google is way cool.

http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html

If the intentions of the Framers are spelled out as clearly as Phetro claims, why do I have to read so many cases where both the majority and dissent are citing the Federalist Papers as evidence of why they are right?

The federalist papers were, as you said, propaganda.

The Tenth Amendment clearly says that the rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States. Yet in McCulloch v. Maryland we have Chief Justice (Revolutionary War Veteran and Federalist) John Marshall saying that the states aren't entitled to any rights that they didn't have prior to the creation of the United States and so cannot tax the national bank.

You only reinforce what I have been trying to say. The anti-federalists were responsible for the inclusion of the BoR as a condition of their acceptance of the new constitution. The federalists did not think it was necessary. Thus when Marshall (a federalist) gets a chance, of course he will rule against. He didn't want the Bor anyway. Is that so hard to figure?

[aside] most of the Bill of Rights has been eroded into happy talk anyway. 9 and 10 the most. Truly sad. We owe it to them good old federalists [/aside]

So if I am on the court and trying to decide a case, which Federalist do I follow to determine the correct interpretation? Do I give any weight to people who didn't even want the Constitution to exist and their arguments against it? I get the impression from the writing here that several of you regard this as a pretty clear cut and easy decision - and I don't think that is the case at all.

Our ancestors voted to accept the constitution. It is ours. What was included was the Bill of Rights sort of as a gift from the anti-federalists. Why is it so hard to understand that it has been whittled away. I would be happy for a .gov that followed the rules which include amendments 1-10.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What CCW said. I would only add that CCW is making a point that you might not be getting. He is pointing out that there is a range perceptible between the anti-federalists and the federalist with regard to the balance between State power vs Federal power, that range is very narrow by today's standards, and significantly in favor of liberty no matter what point on that range you fall. Since the current status of Supreme Court precedence is far exterior to that range, in the direction of centralization, consolidation, usurpation, despotism, etc., it matters not at all that anti-federalists and federalists disagreed as to where to best draw that line, since both "extremes" are so close together by the standards of modern SCOTUS jurisprudence as to seem almost virtually the same. We are far from it, is the point, so the fact that the Founders didn't always perfectly agree is rather a moot point. That fact certainly doesn't support your position.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What CCW said.

You keep saying that, even as CCW is saying something entirely different from what you are saying.
===========================================================================

Bart, in the words (addressed by him, in a private letter, to George Washington) of James Madison himself, The Father of the Constitution, the purpose of The Federalist Papers was to "present a full discussion of the merits of the proposed constitution in all its relations."

Leave us not be misled. The federalist papers were in fact a bunch of propaganda and lies to get the people to accept the new constitution.

the federalists were a bunch trying to con the citizenry into a powerful central .gov.

========================================================================================

Secondly, the fact that States have no new powers, as a result of the US Constitution is in no way contradictory to the Tenth Amendment

The anti-federalists were responsible for the inclusion of the BoR as a condition of their acceptance of the new constitution. The federalists did not think it was necessary. Thus when Marshall (a federalist) gets a chance, of course he will rule against. He didn't want the Bor anyway. Is that so hard to figure?

[aside] most of the Bill of Rights has been eroded into happy talk anyway. 9 and 10 the most. Truly sad. We owe it to them good old federalists [/aside]

====================================================================================

I'm sure you can understand my confusion...

Mr. Roberts, I was unaware that I had failed to answer your questions. I went back and made a collection. Unless this is a clever rhetorical trick question, the anti-federalists would be writing the anti-federalist papers.

Thank you for the effort; but we have multiple conversations going on here and the questions were directed at TRH. I have no problem with you answering them; but I think you missed the context they were asked in. TRH had stated that the Federalist Papers represented a full discussion on the merits of the proposed Consitution. By asking him to show me the Federalist papers written by the Antifederalists I was pointing out that they did not. Likewise, most of your other answers either aren't following the conversation or are matters (like police state) where we will have to agree to disagree.

Since the current status of Supreme Court precedence is far exterior to that range, in the direction of centralization, consolidation, usurpation, despotism, etc., it matters not at all that anti-federalists and federalists disagreed as to where to best draw that line, since both "extremes" are so close together by the standards of modern SCOTUS jurisprudence as to seem almost virtually the same.

Here is Printz v. United States. Scalia cites the Federalist Papers to support the majority opinion that the Federal government is commandeering state executive officers. Souter also cites the Federalist papers to support the dissent opinion that the Founders anticipated being able to order state officers into national service.

So we aren't even talking Federalists and Anti-federalists here; but guys from the same side. Even better, we aren't talking about what the Federalists said in one place and did in another. We have the SAME series of propaganda articles (you did agree with CCW on that or not?) so we get to compare two very alike things. Now which one is right? Surely since there is no significance between the Federalists and Anti-federalists, it should be ridiculously easy to point out a clear cut winner here.

That fact certainly doesn't support your position.

Given some of the miscommunication here, mind if I ask you to clarify exactly what you think my position is?

 

[tyme]

No one, not in any of the CCW disarm threads has ever addressed my working conditions. When I point out that I work alone and that backup can be as much as 30 minutes away (and I'm far from being the only person to work under those conditions, troopers and deputies in more rural areas can have even longer waits for help) it is ignored or I'm called a JBT for wanting to disarm someone who is a certified good guy.

So, you think you have a legitimate need to disarm people who voluntarily disclose their ccw status when they're stopped for minor things like speeding, or worse, when they're the subject of a Terry Stop (which you may not do, but a lot of cops do...)?

It seems to me that the "disarm ccw holders" philosophy has two major problems. First, there are way too many crimes that shouldn't really be considered crimes. Routine traffic stops should not, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, make the driver a suspect to the degree that disarming him is necessary. I'm surprised that cops don't demand ID and ccw status of everyone when they walk into a McDonalds, 7-11, or a bank. Any one of the other patrons could be a cop killer.

Second, disarming people during routine traffic stops or Terry stops is incompatible with the idea that everyone without a record should be able to carry a firearm. What would you do if ccw was so common that almost everyone carried? Would you disarm everyone you interview? I suspect you'd tire of that rather quickly.

Is there a single instance of any ccw holder shooting at a LEO after disclosing ccw status?

If a person (I guess everyone who is interviews by police these days is a "suspect" rather than merely a "person") really represents a threat, the only way to end that threat is to search and restrain that person, or disengage before the person decides to initiate violence. That's why I think drug and gun laws, coupled with liberal police search/frisk policy, does more to put officers at risk than anything else. Frisks serve to encourage preemptive violent action by anyone carrying drugs or weapons, and drug and gun laws give LEOs an excuse not to disengage from an interview, further increasing the risk by giving the "suspect" more time to get nervous or aggravated and then decide to attack.

If you stop someone who discloses ccw status and has an intent to harm you, you're probably in even more danger than normal. If you disarm him without incident, you've put yourself somewhat at ease, yet you have no assurance that he doesn't have a second gun under the seat that he'll use to shoot you when you walk back to your car. Is it even reasonable to think that cop killers only travel with one gun?