Since my response got stifled.......(for civilians only)

[oldfart]

This subject has been sideswiped so many time I can’t even attempt to keep track, but the answer is still the same:

THE COURTS ARE NOT THE FINAL ARBITERS OF WHETHER OR NOT A GIVEN LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL!!

This is another lie that has been told to us for so long and by so many people that we now believe it to be true. The courts have taken that job unto themselves over the years because we (that’s you and I and our parents and grandparents) have sat meekly by while they did it. Now we complain about “Judicial Legislation†and vote for Party ‘A’ in hopes they will be able to turn the tide. Unfortunately, the ultimate difference between Party ‘A’ and Party ‘B’ lies only in the title.

The final decision regarding the constitutionality of any law lies with us. It is up to us to make that decision when the time comes and then either live or die with the results. That we usually decide not to decide is more a matter of our… shall we say ‘caution’. We all know what happened to others who have individually decided that some law is unconstitutional and then have gotten arrested or worse, killed.

We all know that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, from the recently passed bill that allows LEOs to carry anywhere in the country to NFA-34, yet few of us are willing to bet our lives on the outcome of a confrontation with the federal police. That’s the ‘caution’ I mentioned.

How many remember the Nuremberg trials? How many remember how many German soldiers were imprisoned or executed because they obeyed German law? Does anybody remember the prosecution telling the court that those soldiers should have disobeyed their (then) lawful orders? The court sided with the prosecution and established, for all time, the principle that ordinary people should decide whether or not an order is lawful and act accordingly.

So stop telling yourselves that the courts are the ones who decide the constitutionality of a law. If every car in California suddenly had an SKS in the back window the police would go crazy for awhile. But if there was no relief for them and cars continued to exhibit ‘Assault’ rifles, eventually the courts would be clogged and politicians would take the easy way out and repeal the stupid law. There would be some pain until then but the end result might make it worthwhile.

 

[NoHarmNoFAL]

Who's to be first into the wood chipper?

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

I think Nuremburg is wrong example as I don't think it was a U.S. Constitutional court. Wasn't it a world court?
Also I think the Lawful orders discussed were on a moral grounds, murder, being unlawful.

There is fighting and killing to save your life and defeat the enemy. When someone is defenseless and you kill them, its murder. An immoral act.

Though the laws were lawful, incorporated into a written law, they were unlawful morally, meaning murder. That is where the soldiers etc. were supposed to be able to think for themselves before obeying an order.

Now for us to decide a law is unlawful and "act accordingly" we would have to act within the system to get it changed, petitions, lobbying, voting, etc. If we decide to "jump into the chipper" we are dead meat, since we act outside the law, being unlawful ourselves. We pay the penalties for going off half cocked.

We aren't talking about critical timing, life or death situations. It's more annoyances, government employees "Just doing my job sir" and a myriad of daily headaches needing to be fought at the ballot box by everyone.

We have been schooled and trained to believe and trust that the Supreme Court is all knowing when it comes to the Constituion. They know what is lawful and what is not, we merely abide or pay dearly.

I don't think the courts would eventually be clogged with assault gun cases. The government would clamp down on all weapons, it's the easiest to do. Just label the first few into the chipper as gun nuts, Davidians, Freemen etc. The term Christians might even work.

The government "chipper" is run by somebody "Just doing their job".

Vick

 

[NoHarmNoFAL]

The government "chipper" is run by somebody "Just doing their job".

That is my point.

The I'm just doing my job mentality is going to be the end of all of us.

"There is no tolerance policy (read: I don't have to think for myself policy), sorry it is out of my hands. I wish I could help you but it's the law."

I think that it is ridiculous that a Cop can pull you over because you don't have your seat belt on. If I choose to fly through the windshield that is my right, but not in this nanny .gov we live in.

At this point in time anything you do will only work against you. If you "Rise up and fight", you are a gun nut and you hurt the greater cause. If you form an organization for educate the public you are a gun nut and are discredited for being a gun nut. If you try to teach people the truth about guns and gun owner ship they will say that is not what I heard on TV and I believe the TV over you because you are a gun nut. God forbid, someone goes off the deep end and does a hi-profile shooting, then all gun nuts are wack jobs and their wanna-be military guns must be confiscated for the good of the country and there you are up the creek with no boat, no paddle and no hope to ever get them back.

Is there any chance of this being a civil rights case?
I like to shoot guns, it makes me happy, it makes my life better.
Is this part of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

 

[Tamara]

We have been schooled and trained to believe and trust that the Supreme Court is all knowing when it comes to the Constituion.

Would that be the same Supreme Court that I have repeatedly referred to as "nine black-robed Gladys Kravitzes in some East coast urban pesthole," or a different Supreme Court?

The greatest danger to my cause are my "allies" who are ready to treat every traffic stop like Lexington Green and every peace officer like Banastre Tarleton.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. GeneC said

Not so simple( you're assuming we're all in agreement with your interpretation of the Constitution), is it a Federal weapon's violation, State, local, what?

I just ask....read me off a federal weapons law, then read me off 2a and then justify the federal weapons law.

Sorry. It's real simple. This is not rocket science. We all know that the constitution is the supreme law. This is a gun forum. It is expected that you would understand 2a.

Bibles travel through interstate commerce too.

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

I was speaking of the U.S. Supreme Court, but your discription does seem to fit the elephant.

Vick

 

[Wildalaska]

Was gonna wade in here, but Tamara is o so much better

WildttfnAlaska

 

[cropcirclewalker]

So, I guess I allowed myself to get dragged off my subject.

Like Mr. Gwinn said there are probably not high hopes for us.

I am still sort of optimistic. This forum is one of my hopes.

We are a bunch of gunners.

From the response on this thread I suspect that half of us are leos.

All here, with a few exceptions, are thoughtful, decent, honorable, principled persons.

Some of you have become misguided. Some of you are trapped by your situation. Some of you have a chip on your shoulder. Some of you are tots. Some of you hold us civilians in low regard. Some of you think that we SHOULD be subjegated.

Since most are thoughtful, decent, honorable and principled, there is a chance that you can be influenced by the truth. 2a is the truth. The other bullhockey that they dreamed up to torture it's meaning is just that, bullhockey and you know it.

I know you gotta go along to get along. I know you gotta meet your quota. Maybe somebody out there working in a capacity as enforcer for the state will get a chance to show "discretion" to us common civilians and perhaps a few of you can influence your work mates.

Some of you gunner type civilians may know persons who work as enforcers for the state, maybe your neighbor, relative, friend from school, drinking buddy (I sort of doubt), whatever. Just ask them in a situation where they will not slam you onto your hood and hook you up to justify their actions with their oaths.

We all know that govt. needs us to be unarmed in order for them to work their magic on us. We all know that conviction for a "weapons violation" can deprive us of our franchise. Maybe that's why we have a drug war, to disinfranchise black people.

You LEOs, think about it. What are you doing to our country? You civilians, think about it, what can you do to work some influence on the enforcers? Try patriotism, try logic, try shame, try something.

The alternative could be painful for many of us.

 

[NoHarmNoFAL]

Before this thread gets locked I would just like to say that I’m so sure that the LEO’s are the ones to blame here. The term don’t shoot the messenger rings true. The one who sends the message and the ones who say that is constitutional are the one who’s feet should be held to the fire.

Have you ever been let off of a speeding ticket? I have, was I speeding, yes, should I have gotten a ticket, yes. I don’t think that LEO’s are as bad as they are being portrayed here lately. I know several that I would trust to the ends of the earth but I’m sure that there are those that are the scum of the earth also.

Lets be clear here the LEO’s don’t make the laws of the land they enforce them for those that YOU elect to represent YOU.

If those elected officials were made to enforce the laws that they make, there would a lot less laws.

Yelling for the LEO’s to change or disobey their oath to uphold the law, is to close the gate after the cattle are already out of the corral.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Thanks, Mr. NoHarmNoFal, but there are

lots of places for blame here. Maybe even solar flares. And nutrasweet.

but...


The Leo is the guy reading this forum. I think to try to influence the low life politican, I should log onto the low life politician forum.

We gotta work with what we got.

 

[NoHarmNoFAL]

I agree that we must work with what we have. I think that until it gets much much worse the LEO's could be your best friends. If they think that the laws are crap they are the one that are going to catch crap from the citizens. It would be in their best interests not allow blatant anti-Constitutional laws to make it to the books.

[tin foil hat \ON]
That is unless they want a total police state and civil unrest which would require more LEO's and more LEO Union members. The more oppressive it gets the more uneasy the natives get which drive the death spiral closer and closer to impact.
[tin foil hat \OFF]

Or I could be all full of crap, the moon is really green cheese, and The Hokey Pokey is really what it is all about.

 

[Tamara]

cropcirclewalker,

I was typing a response in a separate window, until I hit "refresh" in the main window and saw your latest posts.

I am still sort of optimistic. This forum is one of my hopes.

Glad you could join us. This forum and its predecessor have been around, in one form or another, for about six years now, and most folks here are actively engaged in restoring the acknowledgement of the Second Amendment rights of both you and I.

2a is the truth.

At the risk of sounding pedantic: "Duh."

Some of you gunner type civilians may know persons who work as enforcers for the state, maybe your neighbor, relative, friend from school, drinking buddy (I sort of doubt), whatever. Just ask them in a situation where they will not slam you onto your hood and hook you up to justify their actions with their oaths.

The latter part of that paragraph simply confirms that you are not a person included in the first part. Meet some cops on a social basis. Talk to them. Find out what their viewpoints are. Come back and tell us what you learned.

What are you doing to our country?

Attempting to serve it as best they know how. If you think that they don't possess all the info they need, why not try to help, rather than divide? Why play into your enemy's hands?

You civilians, think about it, what can you do to work some influence on the enforcers?

I can do something better than calling them names on a message board or making broad-brushed, ill-informed accusations of the type that so rankle us when they're made against gun owners.

I'm washing my hands of this one.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Tamara, I'm sorry if

I upset you again. I have tried my best to be polite about what I consider to be an extremely important subject and, yes, I have been told that I lack personal relationship skills. I further am uneducated and don't speak latin or know lots of names or big words.

I further live way out in the woods in a remote and sparsly populated portion of the Ozarks. By choice, of course. Like I said previous, I only get to meet leos in the big city where I am not recognized as a local.

The local police in the town 8 miles from where I live know me and we wave at each other. Those guys would not run me in on a "weapons charge". I seriously doubt that they would let me into their local FOP meeting. I seriously doubt that they have a local FOP. There's only 4 of them.

I write my low lifed politicians. I vote. I work for my political party. I contribute to forums. I suppose I could do more.

I gave 4 yrs, 1 month and 3 days of my life to the protection and defense of my constitution. I love it. I am trying to live up to my oath. I expect, hope and try to influence others to also.

 

[RealGun]

I don't see these issues in the same way cropcirclewalker does. I would by no means seek to discredit much of the philosophy expressed except that I get a different conclusion on some basic points that wind up influencing most of the others.

First I believe in the rule of law. I accept that bad laws need to be prevented or repealed by effective action. I do not believe in selective anarchy, no matter how holy the cause is believed to be. Who wants to be a martyr unless life or death, liberty or total subjugation? However, I do believe in revolution by large groups of like minded citizens. I would certainly look for a compelling justification before participating.

Believing in the rule of law, I have to accept the role of LEOs. I will be critical of abuses but will not use them to stereotype all LEOs negatively.

Secondly I have a different view of the Constitution in pragmatic terms. I too would like to read the 2A to my advantage, but as Sanford Levinson pointed out in his treatise, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", interpretations by any side of the 2A debate are "tendentious", which means one's interpretation is biased by a preexisting philosophy. We desperately need a Court ruling to lay that debate to rest. The problem is that such a ruling would not necessarily be what we expected or would hope for. Not every SCOTUS Justice is a Solomon, as we well know, and public sentiment does influence the Court. In any case, those Justices are a product of contemporary society and don't necessarily all think like Founding Fathers.

Arguments for our favored view of the 2A are well founded and compelling, but that does not make law. Our view needs to be validated in Court and implemented in the law. We have to remember that in practical terms any interpretation of the 2A is still fiction, not fact. It's an ongoing debate. Anti-gunners believe they are just as righteous as we are, both sides using a tendentious view of the 2A as an argument. We need an arbitrator, and that would be either the Supreme Court, extreme police action, a righteous revolt, or voters who understand the Founding Father's intentions. Good luck on that one, since all most do is watch television and pick candidates who are the best performers or have the best looking ties. The issues are superficial. Many have no concept of the real differences between one party and another.

So, willfully violating a law based upon the belief that it is invalid is risky business. Your assumptions may be on weak foundations in legal terms. Rather than be a lone martyr, who couldn't afford the cost of due process, or who might not survive the confrontation, you would need lots of comrades in arms or like minded voters to make your view stick. Let's just agree that not everyone reads the 2A or projects its logical influence in the same way that we would. To me, the 2A is very clear. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees, especially when they want special rules for freed slaves, not anticipating that freedom scenario in the original Constitution. It's all a crock, but that's America. As long as the "from my cold, dead hands" resolve exists in great enough numbers, we'll be fine.

 

[GeneC]

CCW said: "I just ask....read me off a federal weapons law, then read me off 2a and then justify the federal weapons law.

Sorry. It's real simple. This is not rocket science. We all know that the constitution is the supreme law. This is a gun forum. It is expected that you would understand 2a."


Ok, but then I expect that you understand the Constitution, as you agree it is supreme Law and I'm going to predict that this will be as I said the first time, that this is going to boil down to individual interpretations of the Constitution, which it sets up our Govt so that the Supreme Court DOES interpret the laws.



Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.



H.R.1025
Title: To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any firearm.


I see no infringement here.


Gun Free Schools Act of 1994
Federal law requiring expulsion of students carrying weapons to school if the school receives federal financial aid



I see no infringement here either.






State Statute:The 2003 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter

790.16 Discharging machine guns; penalty.--

(1) It is unlawful for any person to shoot or discharge any machine gun upon, across, or along any road, street, or highway in the state; upon or across any public park in the state; or in, upon, or across any public place where people are accustomed to assemble in the state. The discharge of such machine gun in, upon, or across such public street; in, upon, or across such public park; or in, upon, or across such public place, whether indoors or outdoors, including all theaters and athletic stadiums, with intent to do bodily harm to any person or with intent to do damage to property not resulting in the death of another person shall be a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082. A sentence not exceeding life imprisonment is specifically authorized when great bodily harm to another or serious disruption of governmental operations results.

(2) This section shall not apply to the use of such machine guns by any United States or state militia or by any law enforcement officer while in the discharge of his or her lawful duty in suppressing riots and disorderly conduct and in preserving and protecting the public peace or in the preservation of public property, or when said use is authorized by law.



Nope, no infringement here either.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Hmmmm, should I have to undergo a background check before I can practice the religion of my choice or before I can write an article in the press?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. GeneC, Thanks for the reply,

and on the surface, when you refer to;

H.R.1025H. Title: To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any firearm.

might not be in violation. When you REALLY look it though, what does it say?

We want you to wait for a period of time so that we can check to see if you are a criminal. So, he turns out to be a criminal. Now what. Read me off 2a again and show me where it excludes criminals.

I know I will drop some authoritarian types here, but a right is a right. Just 'cause yer a criminal doesn't mean that you can't practice your religion or speak freely. A right is a right. God is the one that gave them to us. God should take them away.

Gun Free Schools Act of 1994
Federal law requiring expulsion of students carrying weapons to school if the school receives federal financial aid

So read me off 2a again and tell me where it says you can't bear your arms in a school without being infringed?

I can imagine some WA remark about letting your 7 year old take your gun to school. I would hope the parents of today have enough sense. Maybe not. Even WITH the law the students do it. What's the point?

They are expelling students who left their lawfully owned shotgun in their trunk after a weekend hunting trip. Carrying (Bearing) an arm is not a crime. The unlawful use of it is.

edited because I got called away, but........When the 7 year old takes the gun to school, that is a crime perpertrated by the parent, not the child. Who gets expelled? The only punishment that the parent has to endure is to have to find a new baby sitter. With Liberty comes responsibility. We cannot let the state be our nanny.

Finally, the feds have no business in education. If they did, they would not have waited until the 1840's to start up their govt. schools.

 

[PunkDave]

Secondly I have a different view of the Constitution in pragmatic terms. I too would like to read the 2A to my advantage, but as Sanford Levinson pointed out in his treatise, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", interpretations by any side of the 2A debate are "tendentious", which means one's interpretation is biased by a preexisting philosophy. We desperately need a Court ruling to lay that debate to rest. The problem is that such a ruling would not necessarily be what we expected or would hope for. Not every SCOTUS Justice is a Solomon, as we well know, and public sentiment does influence the Court. In any case, those Justices are a product of contemporary society and don't necessarily all think like Founding Fathers.

This is exactly the kind of nebulous rationalization that anti 2A folks like to use. 2A is unambiguous and needs no "interpretation" regardless of what semantics folks like to employ. OK, so if the intention here is to make a "pragmatic" argument about how things are "really done" then fine, but this only perpetuates the myth that we don't really know what the framers wanted. Besides, decision after decision by the Supreme Court has upheld the individual's RKBA. I don't take much stock in activist lower court opinions.

Perhaps I am missing the point of this part of your post? If so, please clarify. I'm a reasonable person... really!

 

[WilderBill]

First off, I'll agree that, according to my interprtaion of the 2A, all gun ARE uncontitutional.
I also understand that my saying so doesn't make much of a difference in how our world works.
LEOs are paid to enforce the laws as they are written. They are also sworn to uphold the constitution. Sometimes that must lead to some degree of conflict. I'm glad I don't have to resolve that in my own life everyday.

As to wheather LEOs should enforce those pesky gun laws;
Once upon a time, back in the dark ages of my youth, my grandad was a Peace Officer. That was in the days before the term LEO was in vougue and well before the force part of enforcement was stressed.
I came to understand that an individual officer has a degree of discression and should use it, based on the totality of the circumstances and his best judgement.

Examples that I can remember are;
If you see an obviously rabid dog running down the street, then blow a hole in it ASAP. Then call animal control to pick it up. Yep, that happened.
If a bank robber shoots and kills youir partner, again blow a hole in him ASAP, then call for backup. 1942.
If you find someone carrying a concealed weapon (way before CCW) and he's taking his days recepts from his place of business to the bank in a bad neighborhood, then tell him to be carefull and have a nice day.
Yep, that happened more than once, as well.

My point in that little narritive is that LEOs have or should have, some descretion in the conduct of daily contact with us poor peasants.
If you are a LEO, then consider using that descrition.
If you are a voter then work to change the laws.
If you are a gun owner, be careful not to add any numbers to negative statisics.
If you are a forum member, feel free to vent here. You won't get hauled away for daring to disagree with a member of LE on the forum.

 

[GeneC]

"Read me off 2a again and show me where it excludes criminals."


This is too ridiculous to respond to. I proved my point, you haven't proved yours. The 2A is not the entire Constitution, where it says that criminals lose certain rights. So I'm right, this is going to boil down to individual interpretation, which derails the whole thread.

 

[GeneC]

Hmmmm, should I have to undergo a background check before I can practice the religion of my choice or before I can write an article in the press?


__________________

Another ridiculous statement that only lends to make mockery of this thread. If you can cause harm to another human being, within your religion, yes , you do need a background check and I believe there are laws to that effect.

 

[GeneC]

Article III. (of the Constitution)
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

 

[RealGun]

Besides, decision after decision by the Supreme Court has upheld the individual's RKBA. - PunkDave

I am not aware that this is true at all. Quite the contrary. They either avoid the cases or rule so narrowly that there are few broad implications, certainly not in our favor, if any.

2A is unambiguous

You're in denial. I would suggest trying to be objective about the whole controversy surrounding the 2A, both in its meaning and the scope of its authority. If the meaning and implications of the 2A were so clear cut, they wouldn't be so easily abused. We say that "the Constitution is ignored", but what really happens sometimes is that it is simply read differently than in a way that we would favor. We demonize law makers who think they are doing the right thing. What we need is a legal ruling to settle the question. The fault lies with a Federal Court system that has stonewalled the issue for 70 years. We also don't try hard enough collectively to present them with good cases. Again though, we wouldn't necessarily like the outcome. That's because it is not as black and white as we would prefer to believe.

 

[GeneC]

RG, whose this "we" you're refering to? Also, didn't the US Attorney General declare that the 2A meant individuals , as apposed Komrad Reno's interpretation that it meant only militias?