How do we stop this gun control virus

[LT.Diver]

This is why we can't stop gun control. Everybody makes it too complicated. JUST VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND NEVER VOTE FOR LIBERALS!
And if your only choice is between a liberal Democrat and a middle of the road republican, you have to grit your teeth and vote for the half assed republican. If Mass had dine so, we would have senator Brown right now vs the lier Warren.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The gun-owning community needs an image makeover, and gun organizations need outreach efforts to speak to the unconverted.

Nearly every time a gun is used to thwart crime, it never makes it to the news. Therefore, those good people who defended themselves or others almost never are reported on. Every time a bad guy uses a gun it makes sensationalized headlines. How does one work with a media to balance the reporting let alone expose the true image of gun owners? We don't need a makeover. We need proper exposure.

As for the "unconverted," you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Until those "unconverted" learn the truth on their own, they are, quite frankly, useless. They simply sway in the breeze and drift on the tide.

Woody

 

[Spats McGee]

In Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS also stated that:

It is emphatically the 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Spats, what you quoted from Marbury v. Madison is often quoted out of context.

The whole paragraph you excerpted the follwing from: ...

...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....​

... in its entirety is as follows, with the previous paragraph added to keep it in context:

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

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. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
(* Interpret that "rule," not the Constitution or a law.)​

Basically, the Court said it must determine which law has supremacy, the Constitution or the legislation. The court said it must "interpret that rule," meaning the Court must decide to follow either the rule that the Constitution is supreme or a supposed rule that the law should be adjudicated regardless of its constitutionality. The "rule" that is the subject of the paragraph you excerpted a portion from is the "rule" mentioned in the previous paragraph. You are applying a non sequitur if your intent to post that line from Marbury v. Madison was to imply that the Court said it must "interpret" the Constitution.

Obviously, all the Court needed to do was abide the supremacy clause in Article VI.

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Obviously, all the Court needed to do was abide the supremacy clause in Article VI.

No, because the Supremacy Clause relates to federal law (the Constitution and statutes) superseding state law and was therefore not applicable in Marbury.

The result in Marbury flowed from a determination that a certain federal act was inconsistent with the proper application of the Constitution. But to reach that conclusion the Court necessarily had interpret the Constitution to find that there was a conflict.

Your problem, Woody, is that you've never done any of the sort of thing in real life. You've never tested your notions by trying to use them to actually have an effect on real life circumstances. You just sit in your easy chair and think these things up.

On the other hand, Spats McGee and I have done this sort of thing in real life. We've tested our understanding and opinions in front of judges, regulator, legislators and opposing attorneys; and we've made things happen for real, live people in the real world.

 

[Officers'Wife]

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-renew-gun-control-push-california-shooting-spree-173432763.html

Conn. Senator wants to push the same bills that were defeated last year AGAIN and uses the recent STABBING, Shooting, vehicle crush in CA. to push his gun control agenda. Funny, he ignores the knife, the car...and focuses on the guns.

He says his push is to focus on mental health but geeze, get a clue. A perfectly sane guy buys a gun and two years later cracks. A looney buys an illegal gun and goes on a rampage. These BANS and CONTROLS are unrelated.

So how do we stop this virus known as anti-gun politicians ?

I suspect that "gun control" is just one brick in a rather large structure. When I engage older patients (60+) in conversations of their youth one phrase is repeated over and over in chilling frequency. "if a kid did that today he would be put away somewhere."

My grandfather told stories of how his (rural) school traveled to a relatively large college campus to compete in rifle matches. Today that campus has been declared "gun free" and in his golden years the same campus he competed on would arrest him if he had the same rifle in his truck. Despite that "freedom" two months ago a post grad student was shot to death inside the engineering building. In response to the failure of the 'gun free campus' many students are calling for even greater restrictions. It's said that insanity can be defined by doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. To stop the "virus" as you call it, we need to start listening to common sense and stop bowing to the demands of those that definition has declared insane.

 

[AlexanderA]

JUST VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND NEVER VOTE FOR LIBERALS!

No. The gun issue does not necessarily break down along liberal-conservative lines. For example, long-time Congressman John Dingell, who is an economic liberal if ever there was one, was once on the NRA Board of Directors and has always been a defender of gun rights. If gun owners write off "liberals," they're writing off half their potential supporters. On the other hand, identifying gun rights with "conservatism" is a recipe for long-term defeat.

 

[Spats McGee]

Basically, the Court said it must determine which law has supremacy, the Constitution or the legislation. The court said it must "interpret that rule," meaning the Court must decide to follow either the rule that the Constitution is supreme or a supposed rule that the law should be adjudicated regardless of its constitutionality. The "rule" that is the subject of the paragraph you excerpted a portion from is the "rule" mentioned in the previous paragraph. You are applying a non sequitur if your intent to post that line from Marbury v. Madison was to imply that the Court said it must "interpret" the Constitution.

Obviously, all the Court needed to do was abide the supremacy clause in Article VI.

That sounds nice, but it's wrong. I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't actually litigate many constitutional issues. If you ever go out on that limb, you'll realize that it's impossible to determine the constitutionality of a statute, or of the actions of agents of the state, without interpretation. For example, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

CC, I've seen a number of your posts that proclaim that all we need to do is "read" the constitution, but that no "interpretation" is necessary. So please tell us, without interpretation, if it was constitutional for a police dog to bite an unarmed suspect who was hiding in the woods after fleeing from the police at about 1:30 in the morning, and why. The "why" is necessary so that we can later distinguish one case from another.

And just so you know, I've been litigating a very, very similar case . . .

 

[DrBozack]

Nearly every time a gun is used to thwart crime, it never makes it to the news. Therefore, those good people who defended themselves or others almost never are reported on. Every time a bad guy uses a gun it makes sensationalized headlines. How does one work with a media to balance the reporting let alone expose the true image of gun owners? We don't need a makeover. We need proper exposure.

As for the "unconverted," you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Until those "unconverted" learn the truth on their own, they are, quite frankly, useless. They simply sway in the breeze and drift on the tide.

Woody

That's why you don't rely on media alone to tell your story.

 

[DrBozack]

CC, I've seen a number of your posts that proclaim that all we need to do is "read" the constitution, but that no "interpretation" is necessary. So please tell us, without interpretation, if it was constitutional for a police dog to bite an unarmed suspect who was hiding in the woods after fleeing from the police at about 1:30 in the morning.

And just so you know, I've been litigating a very, very similar case . . .

Listen, Spats McGee, the Founding Fathers did the thinking so that we wouldn't have to. Just look at the 4th Amendment. Americans are protected from "unreasonable" search and seizure. That's as clear-cut as the stone tablets Moses carried down from stone tablets that Moses carried down from Sinai, and requires NO interpretation.

 

[JohnKSa]

Just look at the 4th Amendment. Americans are protected from "unreasonable" search and seizure. That's as clear-cut as the stone tablets Moses carried down from stone tablets that Moses carried down from Sinai, and requires NO interpretation.

Are you honestly saying that out of 350 Million Americans there is no possibility that there could be more than one single opinion as to what "unreasonable" means? Clearly there are. Criminals, for example, tend to think that any search at all is unreasonable. Law enforcement tends to have a much more liberal interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable search.

When that kind of difference of opinion arises, who decides what "unreasonable" means? Not you or I. The Supreme Court ultimately decides because they are appointed to interpret the Constitution.

... the Founding Fathers did the thinking so that we wouldn't have to.

An assertion which is no doubt comforting to some because of the burden that it would absolve them of if only it were true.

 

[phil dirt]

Quote:
"Reading some of the more than 2500 comments on the article, they run to more than 95% pro gun. People are getting quite tired of liberal politicians spouting off about new controls that just hamper, and even endanger, law abiding citizens."

Now, if we could only get them to vote!

 

[PabloJ]

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-renew-gun-control-push-california-shooting-spree-173432763.html

Conn. Senator wants to push the same bills that were defeated last year AGAIN and uses the recent STABBING, Shooting, vehicle crush in CA. to push his gun control agenda. Funny, he ignores the knife, the car...and focuses on the guns.

He says his push is to focus on mental health but geeze, get a clue. A perfectly sane guy buys a gun and two years later cracks. A looney buys an illegal gun and goes on a rampage. These BANS and CONTROLS are unrelated.

So how do we stop this virus known as anti-gun politicians ?

There are certain people that should not have guns. Latest fuel to fire was added by certain elements of open carry fraternity in Texas. They took assault-style weapons into places of business frequented by people that do not share or agree with their views. The results were quite predictable. It's obvious that these companies are open to make money and scaring customers away is bad for business.

 

[Spats McGee]

Listen, Spats McGee, the Founding Fathers did the thinking so that we wouldn't have to. Just look at the 4th Amendment. Americans are protected from "unreasonable" search and seizure. That's as clear-cut as the stone tablets Moses carried down from stone tablets that Moses carried down from Sinai, and requires NO interpretation.

Well, if that be true, that the Fourth Amendment requires no interpretation, then tell me what constitutes an "unreasonable search." If no interpretation is needed, then surely there can be no difference of opinion between your definition and that of SCOTUS over the years.

I'll tell you what. Since you seem to be on the same "no interpretation needed" track, I'll put the same question to you that I did to ConstitutionCowboy:

....So please tell us, without interpretation, if it was constitutional for a police dog to bite an unarmed suspect who was hiding in the woods after fleeing from the police at about 1:30 in the morning.

All you have to do is tell me why such a dog bite was or was not reasonable, but do so without interpretation. The "why" is necessary so that one case can be distinguished from other cases, unless you want to take the position that police dog bites are per se unreasonable (or per se reasonable).

I posit that without interpretation, it becomes very, very difficult to connect the concept of an unreasonable search with fact patterns as they arise.

 

[PabloJ]

I erased my comment because I had nothing good to say. Sorry.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Well, if that be true, that the Fourth Amendment requires no interpretation, then tell me what constitutes an "unreasonable search." If no interpretation is needed, then surely there can be no difference of opinion between your definition and that of SCOTUS over the years.

That's an easy one to answer. An unreasonable search is one conducted without a warrant.

(I'll be back later to address the Supremacy Clause. I'm both right and wrong, but the right is backed up by Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.)

(I'll address the antics of Underdog, too ) )

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's an easy one to answer. An unreasonable search is one conducted without a warrant....

Except that's not what the courts have said, nor is it what the Fourth Amendment says.

As usual you're disconnected from reality.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Except that's not what the courts have said, nor is it what the Fourth Amendment says.

I don't much care what the Court has said over the years. I base my arguments on what the Constitution says. So, please tell me what the 4th Amendment says.

As for reality, I'm quite aware of how the Constitution has been construed, abused, ignored, and exceeded; and most of that has been aided, sanctioned, and practiced by the Court.

Woody

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

At the end of the day, demographics play a role in any republic or democracy. The more people you have who do not own a gun and who are ignorant about them, the easier it is to sell gun control. Conversely, the more people you have who either own or gun or who are knowledgeable about how they work, the harder it is to sell nonsense like prohibiting barrel shrouds.

This is what so many people don't understand about the real power of the NRA. While the NRA is an indispensable force in lobbying, getting friendly politicians elected and doing the morning talk show circuit thing, their real power isn't in any of those things - it is in helping ranges get built and stay open so that new shooters have an easy, accessible, and safe place to shoot and get interested in shooting.

We have a whole new generation that grew up playing Battlefield or Call of Duty, paintball and airsoft. These guys aren't interested in blasting Bambi. But they do like 3-gun, IDPA, IPSC, etc. They are also a big reason why in a Democrat-majority Senate, the last attempt to pass an assault weapons ban failed by a 60-40 vote. If you want to put a dent in gun control, reach out to these people and help them develop two things:

1) An interest in shooting
2) Good, solid safety habits

From there, the rest will take care of itself.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I don't much care what the Court has said over the years....

Nor does the Court care what you say. The difference is that what the Court says affects real life. What you say doesn't mean anything.

....I base my arguments on what the Constitution says. So, please tell me what the 4th Amendment says....

The Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It thus (1) prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; and (2) sets some standards for the issuance of a warrant.

It does not say that a search or seizure is unreasonable without a warrant. The Founding Fathers were literate men and could have said so explicitly if that is what they intended.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Had there been a semicolon between 'violated' and 'and' instead of a comma, you would have more of a case. That would have allowed searches and sezures without a warrant, and would have negated the intent of having to securing probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing etc., and etc., to conduct a search or seizure. Otherwise why would anyone endeavor to secure a warrant when they had free reign to search and/or seize without one? The latter half of the 4th Amendment would be superfluous.

A lot of evidence gets thrown out due to the lack of a warrant.

 

[AlexanderA]

It bothers me that so many people here spout off about the Constitution, based only on their reading of the document, and their own personal interpretation of the words on the page. They ignore a whole body of case law that has grown up around the Constitution, as well as the context of 200+ years of history. These things cannot be erased. Even an entire course in Constitutional Law, in Law School, can only begin to scratch the surface. A layman's unschooled opinion about the Constitution is most likely wrong.

 

[Spats McGee]

It thus (1) prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; and (2) sets some standards for the issuance of a warrant.

It does not say that a search or seizure is unreasonable without a warrant. The Founding Fathers were literate men and could have said so explicitly if that is what they intended.

Had there been a semicolon between 'violated' and 'and' instead of a comma, you would have more of a case. That would have allowed searches and sezures without a warrant, and would have negated the intent of having to securing probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing etc., and etc., to conduct a search or seizure. Otherwise why would anyone endeavor to secure a warrant when they had free reign to search and/or seize without one? The latter half of the 4th Amendment would be superfluous.

A lot of evidence gets thrown out due to the lack of a warrant.

Frank is correct on this, CC. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not warrantless searches and seizures. While there is a strong preference for warrants, they are not required in all cases.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that a warrant may not be issued without probable cause, but “the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011). Our cases establish that a warrant is generally required for a search of a home, Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006), but “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ ” ibid.; see also Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam ). And certain categories of permissible warrantless searches have long been recognized.

Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126, 1131-32, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (2014)

Well, if that be true, that the Fourth Amendment requires no interpretation, then tell me what constitutes an "unreasonable search." If no interpretation is needed, then surely there can be no difference of opinion between your definition and that of SCOTUS over the years.

That's an easy one to answer. An unreasonable search is one conducted without a warrant.

Nope. A search conducted without a warrant is a warrantless search, which may or may not be unreasonable. For example:

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Our cases have held that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). That principle applies to the type of search at issue in this case, which involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely's skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation. Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual's “most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.” Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760, 105 S.Ct. 1611, 84 L.Ed.2d 662 (1985); see also Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 616, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989).

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1558, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013)

 

[Frank Ettin]

Had there been a semicolon between 'violated' and 'and' instead of a comma, you would have more of a case. ...

Now you're interpreting the Constitution. I thought you said that the Constitution required no interpretation.

...why would anyone endeavor to secure a warrant when they had free reign to search and/or seize without one?...

Why wasn't the Fourth Amendment written to read:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against [strike]unreasonable[/strike] searches and seizures without a warrant, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In any case, your interpretation of the Constitution doesn't mean anything because the Founding Fathers did not assign to you the exercise of judicial power in cases arising under the Constitution. The people to whom the Founding Fathers assigned that role don't agree with you.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It bothers me that so many people here spout off about the Constitution, based only on their reading of the document, and their own personal interpretation of the words on the page. They ignore a whole body of case law that has grown up around the Constitution, as well as the context of 200+ years of history. These things cannot be erased. Even an entire course in Constitutional Law, in Law School, can only begin to scratch the surface. A layman's unschooled opinion about the Constitution is most likely wrong.

All that case law is replete with dissenting opinions from justices in the minority. Those opinions go both ways. Case law does on occasion get turned on its ear as well. I'll stick with the strict construction and original intent of the Constitution, thank you.

Frank is correct on this, CC. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not warrantless searches and seizures. While there is a strong preference for warrants, they are not required in all cases.

The Constitution does not authorize warrantless searches and seizures either. There is no grant of that power anywhere in the Constitution. To say the Constitution does not prohibit warantless searches and seizures is analagous to saying the Congress may pass law requiring the branding of children since it is not prohibited by the Constitution. The 4th Amendment is authorization to conduct searches and seizures as long as warrants are issued upon probable cause and in line with the other caviats in that added article to the Constitution.

Robinson is a case where the party was already under arrest.
The drawing of the bodily fluid from McNeely was obtained via a warrant.
The yes-no-yes-no yoyo throughout the railroad worker testing in the Court shows that "opinion" and "interpretation" varied greatly. That demonstrated very little solidarity within the Court, and in one part, "convenience" played a bigger role than the Constitution.

I'll stick with all searches and seizures require a warrant as proscribed by the Fourth Amendment. "Caught in the act" is whole 'nuther scenario.

As for the dog bite, Tell me, was the dog ordered to bite the guy or did the dog bite him on his own? Was the guy simply being held by the dog, tried to escape and broke his own skin on the dog's teeth in the struggle? Too much information missing to make a call.

At the end of the day, demographics play a role in any republic or democracy. The more people you have who do not own a gun and who are ignorant about them, the easier it is to sell gun control. Conversely, the more people you have who either own or gun or who are knowledgeable about how they work, the harder it is to sell nonsense like prohibiting barrel shrouds.

This is what so many people don't understand about the real power of the NRA. While the NRA is an indispensable force in lobbying, getting friendly politicians elected and doing the morning talk show circuit thing, their real power isn't in any of those things - it is in helping ranges get built and stay open so that new shooters have an easy, accessible, and safe place to shoot and get interested in shooting.

We have a whole new generation that grew up playing Battlefield or Call of Duty, paintball and airsoft. These guys aren't interested in blasting Bambi. But they do like 3-gun, IDPA, IPSC, etc. They are also a big reason why in a Democrat-majority Senate, the last attempt to pass an assault weapons ban failed by a 60-40 vote. If you want to put a dent in gun control, reach out to these people and help them develop two things:

1) An interest in shooting
2) Good, solid safety habits

From there, the rest will take care of itself.

Good points.

Woody