TN: Petition for the Right to Keep And Bear Arms

[2dogs]

You TN folks are a radical bunch, eh?

Anyway, follow the link if you want to sign.




http://siptn.org/petition/petition.phtml?PetitionID=1

PETITION TO THE GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE

WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States of America mandates and guarantees the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, and further mandates that the federal government shall make no law which infringes these rights, and

WHEREAS the federal government has violated, abrogated, ignored and vilified the Constitution by enacting laws which infringe these rights, and is thus in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,

THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, as citizens of the United States, call upon and hereby petition the Governor of the State of Tennessee to initiate a bill within the legislative body of the State of Tennessee, which will nullify and make void any and all federal firearms laws, within the boundaries of the Sovereign State of Tennessee, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

Sincerely

The undersigned

 

[Graystar]

I think silly things like this just makes one look like a fanatic.

 

[Zander]

I think silly things like this just makes one look like a fanatic.

What an odd comment from someone who lives in Brooklyn, NY.

 

[pax]

I think silly things like this just makes one look like a fanatic.

I agree entirely. Signing something like that is a great way to get a reputation as a nutcase.

pax

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles Austin Beard

Note for the humor-impaired: pax's sig line du jour is often part of the message. Please read it before flaming.

 

[Graystar]

What an odd comment from someone who lives in Brooklyn, NY.

I'm guessing that you mean such a comment from one that live in a place that's much more restrictive than others. While that is true, and being that I do believe my rights are being violated, I cannot support what is called for in the petition. The petitioner is willing to violate one part of the Constitution because a different part isn't viewed the way he wants it to be viewed. Simply suspending law is not the way to run a stable government. Otherwise, any law that you don't agree with can just be suspended, which renders the Constitution powerless.


US Constitution: Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

[m.i.sanders]

Graystar,

It's called NULLIFICATION, which us southerners seem to like to do every so offten. 'Course the last time we pushed for it, we seem to have came out on the short end.

 

[Zander]

pax...

The petitioner is willing to violate one part of the Constitution because a different part isn't viewed the way he wants it to be viewed. -- Graystar

The petitioner(s) desire that the Constitution be upheld, as the document was written to restrict [federal] government authority and guarantee our inherent Rights.

Simply suspending law is not the way to run a stable government.

Violating our inherent Rights by infringement and/or abrogation is not the way to run a stable government. If you believe that your Rights are being violated, whom do you hold accountable?

My complaints go to Bill Frist and Lamar Alexander; yours [if you bother] go to Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

Hint, hint...

 

[Graystar]

It's called NULLIFICATION

No it isn't. You can only nullify that which you have authority to nullify. A single state does not have the authority to nullify a federal statute.

The correct name for what is being described is "insurrection".

 

[Graystar]

If you believe that your Rights are being violated, whom do you hold accountable?

You do what Silveira and company did. You create an action as per 42 U.S.C s. 1983. You work within the law. You don't address a violation of law with another violation of law. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Tamara]

Graystar,

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..."

I don't think that a federal law which is in violation of a portion of the Constitution can be rightly determined to be "in pursuance thereof".

 

[Graystar]

I don't think that a federal law which is in violation of a portion of the Constitution can be rightly determined to be "in pursuance thereof".

I agree. But does that mean that *you* can now ignore parts of the Constitution?

Many laws passed by the Legislature have been declared unconstitutional by the Judiciary. There is a procedure for this. And other than the recent Silveira v. Lockyer case, there really are no other cases that have been brought up purely on 2nd Amendment grounds.

To me, that says that we haven't even given the system a chance to correct itself. But yet, people are ready to abandon this great system we have and go to war with the government. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Tamara]

Who said anything about going to war with the government?

 

[Graystar]

Who said anything about going to war with the government?

Well, like I said, I do think the action called for is insurrection. But I admit I can exaggerate sometimes.

 

[faustulus]

You do what Silveira and company did. You create an action as per 42 U.S.C s. 1983. You work within the law. You don't address a violation of law with another violation of law. Two wrongs don't make a right.

don't confuse law with morality.

 

[Graystar]

don't confuse law with morality.

But who's morality are you referring to? Your morality may be different from someone else's. The only thing that makes you right and them wrong is your point of view. From thier point of view it's reversed. That's why we need the law.

So to your comment I would reply: don't try to replace law with morality.

 

[Zander]

You don't address a violation of law with another violation of law. -- Graystar

What is your "interpretation" of federal gun control laws? Are they legal [i.e., Constitutional] or not?

 

[Graystar]

What is your "interpretation" of federal gun control laws?

All laws are legal (by default) until demonstrated to be unconstitutional.

It is not the interpretation of the federal gun laws that is the problem. The meaning of those laws is very clear. It is the interpretation of our rights to possess arms that would make those laws legal or unconstitutional. Legislatures are proceeding as though these rights don't exist. Maybe someday someone will demonstate that these rights do indeed exist.

 

[Zander]

All laws are legal (by default) until demonstrated to be unconstitutional.

Nice chatting with you...

 

[faustulus]

So to your comment I would reply: don't try to replace law with morality.

I wasn't taking a side, just pointing out that you used the analogy of two wrongs not making right, but that has nothing to do with a law. In law there are several instances of one law superceeding another.
I will however say that in my opinion law is always trumped by morality. Doing what is right is not always doing what is legal.
Yes morality is subjective. I must do what is right in my mind, and I don't need a law to tell me what that is. If this makes me an anarchist, so be it.