State nullification legislation to prevent 2A infringements.

[JN01]

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.

Courts make decisions based on the facts, and the then applicable law and precedent. That could lead to what to some is an unsatisfactory result. But that doesn't make the court's decision wrong or bad.

I guess I don't have the same rose-colored glasses view of judges and attorneys as a noble group of higher beings, forever insuring truth and justice.

The job of the court is to uphold the law, which sometimes includes those which are wrong and bad. Even so, it is evident that many judges contort facts and case law to reach rulings that support their own political leanings.

In a practical sense, it is only their opinions that matter as the government has the authority to enforce them by whatever means they deem necessary. However, if the Judiciary (with the other branches of government) descends into tyranny, there may be a point when the peasants revolt.

At any rate, the courts (or even more so, the politicians who write the laws they uphold) are overall a poor place to look for a moral example.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it is evident that many judges contort facts and case law to reach rulings that support their own political leanings....

Perhaps in your view. What about those who see things differently?

Major decisions are generally controversial. There are those who said exactly that about Brown v. Board if Education and about Heller.

But still, the bottom line is that it's not your call.

 

[tomrkba]

Thanks for all the legal background Frank.

What do we do when the Congress passes another AWB that is clearly unconstitutional? What are your ideas for a plan, if you could wave your magic wand, for remediation?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Thanks for all the legal background Frank.

What do we do when the Congress passes another AWB that is clearly unconstitutional? ...

I see you haven't learned anything. The Founding Fathers made the federal courts responsible for deciding if a law is unconstitutional -- not you or I. That is how the system works in real life in the real world.

And we must be doing something right. From The Wall Street Journal, "The Culture That Sustains America’s Constitution", 2 July 2018:

Since 1789 the average life span of national constitutions world-wide has been 19 years, according to scholars at the University of Chicago. Meanwhile, “We the People of the United States” are now well into the third century under our Constitution. We’ve lived under the same written charter longer than any people on earth. We’ve had regular federal elections every two years, uninterrupted even by the Civil War....

 

[JN01]

Perhaps in your view. What about those who see things differently?

Major decisions are generally controversial. There are those who said exactly that about Brown v. Board if Education and about Heller.

But still, the bottom line is that it's not your call.

Sorry, guess I need to be a good little prole, shut my mouth and be greatful that my betters have everything under control.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sorry, guess I need to be a good little prole, shut my mouth and be greatful that my betters have everything under control.

Phooey! You miss the point. To be effective one needs to understand how the world works. Tossing around "it's unconstitutional" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give us to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

Success will depend on legal and political acumen. Holding one's breath until turning blue isn't a very effective strategy.

 

[Monac]

All your example shows is that there are principles people are willing to fight over regardless of what a court says about an issue.

What my examples show is that there are principles political minorities will fight over when A) they have convinced themselves they are willing to resort to violence for it, and B) they can't get what they want democratically. Basically, they are people who want to kick over the table when majority rule fails to meet their demands. The classic example in the United States was the pro-slavery cause, which, as I have pointed out several times, resulted in the Civil War.

Being a minority means their outlook is poor if violence starts. Because of their anger, they may be better prepared when the shooting starts, but in the long run? It all depends on the determination of the majority, who are usually pretty pissed that the minority has started the violence. The Confederates lost that gamble (and so did the Japanese in WWII, who made the same bet about the USA). Why on earth would you go down that road? Oh, right, high ideals. The South did it for the high ideals of slavery and white supremacy. I wonder how the pro-gun side will look to history if they start Civil War II?

 

[Monac]

Sorry, guess I need to be a good little prole, shut my mouth and be greatful that my betters have everything under control.

Well, you can if you want to, but I don't know why you would. You could vote, or give money to political organizations and candidates, and all the other stuff people do to influence political decisions. But suit yourself, I guess.

 

[Poper]

Layyr McDonald is credited with the phrase: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
Obviously we have moved beyond boxes 1 and 2 and the jury box is straining the relationship with the law abiding gun owner. I fear the future may see some people resorting to to the fourth box.

John Basil Barnhill said, "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." (https://www.monticello.org/site/res...fears-people-there-liberty-spurious-quotation)
When state and local governments begin enacting laws that reinforce their view of the constitution, does this not imply they are fearing their government's intrusion on our God given rights and are wanting to not reach for the ammo box?

 

[Monac]

Layyr McDonald is credited with the phrase: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."

Yes. The ammo is the ultimate resort to defend democracy against political minorities that refuse to obey majority rule. And if rule by democracy is not part of your definition of liberty, could you explain why not?

 

[Poper]

The ammo is the ultimate resort to defend democracy against political minorities that refuse to obey majority rule.

Sort of. We do not (or supposedly do not) live in a democracy. We have a republican form of government. A very important distiction. I read the reach for the ammo box statement as a last resort. People, as individuals or as groups, will be pushed only so far. Once beyond a certain point, they rebell. As in the Declaration of Independence.
Exactly where that line is drawn, I am not sure. History teaches us that it happens quite often. There have been mutitudes of rebellions throughout history.

We have unalienable rights granted us by our Creator, not our government. The power craving political creatures of the Swamp would be wise to remember it so.
JMHO, of course.

 

[Insignificant bill]

When your government has become so corrupt and unethical just how do we protect our rights?

 

[Monac]

When your government has become so corrupt and unethical just how do we protect our rights?

You change the government at the ballot box, as we did in November 2020. Of course you may have to resist coup attempts by the corrupt and unethical and their deluded and violent followers, like the one that happened on January 6, 2021. That attempt worried me, but I was encouraged by the thought that everyone here is in favor of resisting tyranny.

 

[JN01]

After the pure and upright Democrats pass HB1, instituting measures that insure that any form of voter fraud is unprovable, then the ballot box will become a moot point.

 

[Monac]

Sort of. We do not (or supposedly do not) live in a democracy. We have a republican form of government. A very important distiction. I read the reach for the ammo box statement as a last resort. People, as individuals or as groups, will be pushed only so far. Once beyond a certain point, they rebell. As in the Declaration of Independence.
Exactly where that line is drawn, I am not sure. History teaches us that it happens quite often. There have been mutitudes of rebellions throughout history.

We have unalienable rights granted us by our Creator, not our government. The power craving political creatures of the Swamp would be wise to remember it so.
JMHO, of course.

You are right. We live in a constitutional democracy, with protections for the rights of individuals and political minorities. Among those rights of individuals are those described by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the exact application of which is determined by the Supreme Court.

Given the success in appointing Supreme Court justices of political party that expresses the most support for a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, I have no idea why people here think that their gun rights are "currently in dire jeopardy", as someone remarked in a different thread. By the same token, I also cannot see why "state nullification", a legal fantasy proposed by those who have given up trying to succeed at the national ballot box, is being discussed here.

Therefore, I am disturbed by this talk about revolution. That seems like a sure way to turn people against your cause and ensure your political defeat, which could over time result in significant changes to the Supreme Court, leading you to Layyr McDonald's (whom I do not know, BTW) fourth option - ammo. I have to say, I think that people who talk about revolution for Second Amendment reasons have never experienced armed conflict in real life or read realistically about it.

As for rights guaranteed by our Creator, well, the Founding Fathers agreed with you about that. But I have no idea if the right to keep and bear arms was included among them. There seems to be little consensus about just what our Creator has decreed about many things, and I am afraid firearms are among those.

PS - Thank you for the civility of your reply, Poper. I know that I often become too heated in discussions like this and wind up saying things that are mean-spirited and negative. I will re-read this post and try to remove anything that seems spiteful or ill considered.

PPS - Is Layyr's name really Larry? I do not mean to nitpick about a typo, but it would help me Google him.

 

[Pudge]

Yes. The ammo is the ultimate resort to defend democracy against political minorities that refuse to obey majority rule. And if rule by democracy is not part of your definition of liberty, could you explain why not?

"Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Tyranny of the many over the few is tyranny, not liberty.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...History teaches us that it happens quite often. There have been mutitudes of rebellions throughout history....

And history also teaches that rebellion very seldom make for a positive change, for example, the French Revolution and the accompanying reign of terror. We also have the Paris Commune of 1870. How about the Russian Revolution? The Chinese Revolution that gave us Mao, perhaps? How about the ouster of Basitsa in Cuba? Pol Pot in Cambodia? Anyone know what's happening in what used to be Burma? And let's not forget Iran. I'm not sure that things are all that swell in Egypt or Libya these days. Then there have been the various revolutions, often protracted, taking place with dismaying regularity in one third world country or another. The vast majority of revolutions wind up simply replacing one despot with another.

The American Revolution was unique. At the time of the Revolution each Colony was substantially self governing, at least with regard to internal matters. Each Colony had its own well developed administrative and governmental infrastructures. Many of the leaders of the Revolution were already active in local, political affairs.

At the same time, our Revolution wasn't as much a revolution as it was ejecting an occupying force. Once the British were displaced, we were able to build on a solid foundation of already existing and functional public institutions. And to a large extent the folks who were running local affairs before the Revolution continued to do so after.

Basically, the system wasn't torn down. The then existing system continued under new management. The once colonies continued as they had, just without oversight by the Crown; and through political process they agreed to loosely join together under the Articles of Confederation.

When the Articles of Confederation proved unworkable, they were replaced byt the Constitution. That replacement was accomplished by political process, not by revolution.

 

[JN01]

Given the success in appointing Supreme Court justices of political party that expresses the most support for a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, I have no idea why people here think that their gun rights are "currently in dire jeopardy", as someone remarked in a different thread.

It remains to be seen how the new members of SCOTUS will rule, or even if they will agree to take a 2nd Amendment case. The other fear is that the Democrat majority, seemingly determined to effect radical change, will expand and pack SCOTUS with gun hating justices.

 

[JN01]

And history also teaches that rebellion very seldom make for a positive change, for example, the French Revolution and the accompanying reign of terror. We also have the Paris Commune of 1870. How about the Russian Revolution? The Chinese Revolution that gave us Mao, perhaps? How about the ouster of Basitsa in Cuba? Pol Pot in Cambodia? Anyone know what's happening in what used to be Burma? And let's not forget Iran. I'm not sure that things are all that swell in Egypt or Libya these days. Then there have been the various revolutions, often protracted, taking place with dismaying regularity in one third world country or another. The vast majority of revolutions wind up simply replacing one despot with another.

The American Revolution was unique. At the time of the Revolution each Colony was substantially self governing, at least with regard to internal matters. Each Colony had its own well developed administrative and governmental infrastructures. Many of the leaders of the Revolution were already active in local, political affairs.

At the same time, our Revolution wasn't as much a revolution as it was ejecting an occupying force. Once the British were displaced, we were able to build on a solid foundation of already existing and functional public institutions. And to a large extent the folks who were running local affairs before the Revolution continued to do so after.

Basically, the system wasn't torn down. The then existing system continued under new management. The once colonies continued as they had, just without oversight by the Crown; and through political process they agreed to loosely join together under the Articles of Confederation.

When the Articles of Confederation proved unworkable, they were replaced byt the Constitution. That replacement was accomplished by political process, not by revolution.

Not sure where one draws the line when defining a revolution, but some of the former Republics seem to be doing well after the dissolution of the USSR.

 

[Monac]

"Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Tyranny of the many over the few is tyranny, not liberty.

Oh. I thought we were talking about the United States, where we have majority rule, broadly speaking, with constitutional protections for individuals and political minorities. Specifically, at the national level, laws are made by elected representatives in a congress, where some are elected on the basis of population, and some are allocated two per state, which is sort of a further protection for minority interests. That is how we avoid the tyranny of the many over the few, you see.

Where do you live that they have "pure democracy" (which you make sound pretty much like mob rule)? And if you don't want the kind of government we have in the US, what kind of government do you want? Something very libertarian or anarchist? If so, could you point to examples of it for me? Preferably something that exists now, or at least has existed since, say, assault rifles came into existence?

More seriously, this "tyranny of the majority" talk is what you hear from fanatical political minorities who are working themselves up to end democracy when democracy doesn't give them what they demand. I don't think that ends well for the minority, but if you want to bet the entirety of your cause, everything you own, and your life on it, well, I have done my best to inform you.

 

[Monac]

Not sure where one draws the line when defining a revolution, but some of the former Republics seem to be doing well after the dissolution of the USSR.

Oh, for pity's sake. Did those republics gain their freedom by A) armed revolt against the Soviet Union, or B) issuing a declaration declaring it when the Soviet Union collapsed, without violence? Given that it was B, please explain how this is a relevant example.

 

[Monac]

It remains to be seen how the new members of SCOTUS will rule, or even if they will agree to take a 2nd Amendment case. The other fear is that the Democrat majority, seemingly determined to effect radical change, will expand and pack SCOTUS with gun hating justices.

A) The new members of the Supreme Court were appointed by the Republican Party. If that's not good enough for you, what is?

B) You have no idea what the Democrats are going to do about the Supreme Court. The Court pack talk that I heard was in reference to the Court somehow throwing out the 2020 election in order to keep Trump in office. If they can avoid that level of crazy and partisan, I don't think the Democrats will try. And since we are both just giving opinions, mine has just as much weight as yours.

C) The Democrats care a lot more about issues like abortion and election finance than they do about guns. The idea that they will go out of their way to select "gun hating justices" suggests to me you are obsessed with gun rights issues at the expense of seeing the big picture. Lots of people - heck, the majority of people - have other things on their mind. That's what the Democrats will respond to.

D) That "Democrat Party" stuff is a Republican slur on the Democratic Party. It displays nothing but prejudice. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

 

[GEM]

Pure politics, now - so we are done.

Closed.