carebear
Member
CCW,
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Something else to consider. The challenges to "may-issue" carry concealed laws in CA and others are being primarily based on the bold phrase in section 1. Due process can be our friend.
"Due process" is not strictly a criminal law concept, so yes, property crimes and even enforcement of contracts between individuals are within its purview. And if the Federal Legislature wants to apply its rulings to the states, say to force them to abide by the GCA '68, Section 5 gives them the power, even without the "interstate commerce" penumbra fiasco, by declaring their federal taxing authority as supreme "due process" in that regard.
The reality check here is that Congress CAN make an (even patently)unConstitutional law. They can make any law they damn well choose.
The recourse Constitutionally is not to ignore it, it is still kosher law, but to challenge it in the Federal courts. If they refuse to hear the case or deal with it in its entirety, you're kind of screwed and just have to suck up the Executive branch's LEGAL enforcement of said laws (man the barricades!) until you can raise enough stink to change the Court's mind OR muster enough public support to have the Legislature (who in theory we can change by voting if they fail to represent us) reverse itself.
That's just how it works. LEO's can decide to refuse to enforce the law (most do use discretion far wider than the bosses would EVER allow if they knew about it) but then they lose their jobs. They'll be morally right and unemployed, like military officers who resign their commisions in protest. That's a lot to ask of ANOTHER fellow when the case is the 2nd amendment and even most ardent gun supporters and pro-2nd legal scholars don't contest SOME restrictions as Constitutionally viable.
I think the original question was about exercising discretion, most cops will give you all the credit in the world if you don't make an ass of yourself. It ain't "kowtowing to authority" it's being polite. Even if they won't, suck it up. If you feel they behaved wrongly or deprived you of your rights wrongly (airport situation), use your rights, file a complaint and sue if necessary.
I will probably die alone and in the rain, standing up for the right cause at the wrong time, but it isn't going to be until I've exercised every other option first.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Something else to consider. The challenges to "may-issue" carry concealed laws in CA and others are being primarily based on the bold phrase in section 1. Due process can be our friend.
"Due process" is not strictly a criminal law concept, so yes, property crimes and even enforcement of contracts between individuals are within its purview. And if the Federal Legislature wants to apply its rulings to the states, say to force them to abide by the GCA '68, Section 5 gives them the power, even without the "interstate commerce" penumbra fiasco, by declaring their federal taxing authority as supreme "due process" in that regard.
The reality check here is that Congress CAN make an (even patently)unConstitutional law. They can make any law they damn well choose.
The recourse Constitutionally is not to ignore it, it is still kosher law, but to challenge it in the Federal courts. If they refuse to hear the case or deal with it in its entirety, you're kind of screwed and just have to suck up the Executive branch's LEGAL enforcement of said laws (man the barricades!) until you can raise enough stink to change the Court's mind OR muster enough public support to have the Legislature (who in theory we can change by voting if they fail to represent us) reverse itself.
That's just how it works. LEO's can decide to refuse to enforce the law (most do use discretion far wider than the bosses would EVER allow if they knew about it) but then they lose their jobs. They'll be morally right and unemployed, like military officers who resign their commisions in protest. That's a lot to ask of ANOTHER fellow when the case is the 2nd amendment and even most ardent gun supporters and pro-2nd legal scholars don't contest SOME restrictions as Constitutionally viable.
I think the original question was about exercising discretion, most cops will give you all the credit in the world if you don't make an ass of yourself. It ain't "kowtowing to authority" it's being polite. Even if they won't, suck it up. If you feel they behaved wrongly or deprived you of your rights wrongly (airport situation), use your rights, file a complaint and sue if necessary.
I will probably die alone and in the rain, standing up for the right cause at the wrong time, but it isn't going to be until I've exercised every other option first.
