'You are not to reference the Constitution ... '

[BHPshooter]

This thread is really making my blood boil.

Some points:

Read the DOI: The only legitimate purpose of Government is to protect the rights of citizens. Not SOME rights, all of them.

The Government does not have rights. It has powers. Powers that WE THE PEOPLE gave it. That's right, WE give the gov't power, the gov't does NOT give us our Rights.

Ladybug, how long has it been since you read the bill of rights in its intirety, Preamble and all? The preamble states that it was created as a "fail safe" in case the gov't got out of hand, that certain things were not to be meddled with. The gov't has gone WAAAAY beyond that point, ignoring the second, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments.

So, as a bill of RIGHTS and not GOVERNMENT POWERS, what would that mean? Does the Constitution not say that it is the law of the land? Would that not mean that if the states didn't tow the line, that it would be illegal? That's one of the reasons the 14th was ratified. The states weren't obeying the Law of the Land. The 14th made them.

The second, in its entirety: 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.

I'm sorry, but ladybug's argument that the second only applies to the Federal Legislature is completely Constitutionally infirmed. Once again, the only LEGITIMATE purpose of ANY government, whether federal, state, or local, is to protect the rights of the citizens. The right to strap on a sidearm is a RIGHT. INALIENABLE, at that. It doesn't matter if you decide that you don't like your .357 and want to pack a howitzer, it's your right, and it is being trampled.

Now, say what you want about the guy, but he's got guts to publicly exercise his right, even if it is illegal, so openly. Now, when his right gets trampled so blatantly, it is THE JOB OF THE MILITIA to keep the government in line!!!

Of course, I don't agree with what he did after the trial, but that's a whole 'nother ball game.

I won't even get into how bad the Judiciary is overstepping their bounds.

Maybe this is a little reminder of how complacent and lazy Americans are becoming. Nobody cares about freedom anymore.

I am not ashamed to say, I CARE and if my rights were so blatantly trampled as this mans, I would come out shooting.

tyranny.

Wes

P.S. Quartus, check your PMs.

 

[Ladybug]

ladybug's argument that the second only applies to the Federal Legislature is completely Constitutionally infirmed

Sheesh, how many times do I have to say it - that is not NOT NOT NOT "my" argument... that is the argument the Supreme Court made and has continually affirmed! I do not NOT NOT NOT agree with it AT ALL. :banghead:

That lowly judge in Denver, however, is bound by those Supreme Court decisions, whether he likes them or not. Don't yell at ME because you don't like the system.

 

[Correia]

Agreed. People please keep it calm in here or I will lock this thread down.

I like to rant against the government as much as the next person, but Ladybug is not out to ban your guns.

 

[J-Man]

UPDATE!

Gun activist accused of threatening judge
By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News
October 21, 2003

A Denver gun advocate has been arrested on charges that he threatened a Thornton judge who sentenced him to jail on a dangerous weapon conviction.
Rick Stanley, 49, was being held without bond Monday at Adams County Jail on a police hold from Thornton. He faces two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official.
A Denver SWAT unit - along with officers from Denver police, the FBI, the Adams County Sheriff's Office and Thornton police - were involved in arresting Stanley at his home Saturday. "He was armed at the time of the arrest," said Teresa Garcia, spokeswoman for Denver police. "He was arrested after a short chase. He did try to elude the officers."
Stanley's wife, Pam Stanley, did not return a call Monday, but she asked Michael Cacioppo to comment on her behalf. Cacioppo is the publisher of the Edwards-based online political newspaper Speakout!
"I find it to be outrageous," Cacioppo said of Stanley's arrest.
Last year, Stanley ran as a Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. His main platform was support for the right to bear arms. He was arrested at least twice on weapons charges during his campaign and had his weapons confiscated. The Libertarian Party censured Stanley, saying he had violated party principles in several ways. Stanley vowed to resign from the Libertarian Party after the election to start another party.
Saturday's arrest stemmed from a Thornton case. On Sept. 2, 2002, he was arrested and charged with violating Thornton's dangerous weapons ordinance. "He was carrying a loaded .357 revolver openly on his hip at our Harvestfest, which is held at the Thornton Community Park," said Matt Barnes, spokesman for Thornton police. Stanley was found guilty of the charge at trial by Thornton Judge Charles Rose, fined $520 and sentenced to 90 days, according to Barnes. Stanley appealed the decision to the Adams County District Court, which denied it, and he was scheduled for a sentencing review hearing before Rose on Wednesday . Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant said Stanley didn't show up at the hearing. Instead, he had a a veiled threat delivered to the judge. "Essentially, he said, 'You, judge, reverse yourself or there will be a warrant issued against you,' " said Grant of the note. According to the arrest affidavit, the note demanded that Stanley's conviction be overturned, and that a $1,500 bond and Stanley's gun be returned to him. If the demands were not met, Stanley said Rose was to be charged with treason for not upholding the state constitution and that a warrant from the Mutual Defense Pact Militia would be issued against Rose. The arrest affidavit also cites postings on Stanley's Web site that seem to indicate that members of the militia would be armed and that Stanley's note to the judge was a threat.

 

[SteelyDan]

My, my, I see we've been racking up a lot of non-billable hours over the past day.

Professional pride compels me to point out that I was not wrong in stating that, if the judge had issued a pre-trial order prohibiting questions about constitutional rights, then the defense counsel acted improperly in asking such questions.

Trial judges make mistakes all the time; that's why we've got appellate courts. The proper course of conduct is to preserve the issue for appeal, and then move on.

Even more important, as a practical matter if you blatantly defy and piss off the judge, he or she will probably find a dozen ways to screw you and your client during the course of the trial, many of which probably will not be seriously reviewed on appeal. Your conduct may also piss off the appellate court, further diminishing your chances of obtaining the result you claim to want.

My clients want to know what the realistic consequences of their decisions will be. Not what I think the law should be.

 

[hammer4nc]

Trial judges make mistakes all the time; that's why we've got appellate courts. The proper course of conduct is to preserve the issue for appeal, and then move on.

Admittedly, the following question comes from a layman: Presumably Stanley wished to make some arguments linking 2nd amendment to his particular case. If the judge excluded said arguments from being made, and they don't make it on the trial record, how in the world can the appellate court make a ruling on something (these legal arguments) that have been specifically stricken from the record? Its my impression that appeals courts only rule on procedural errors, not retrying cases?

I guess you could reply that an appellate court would throw the whole thing out and order a new trial... how often does that happen? Wouldn't it be much more likely that the appeals court would review the trial transcript, and pretend that the issue does not exist...precisely because the trial judge excluded the arguments during the trial. So when, or how, do Stanley's muzzled arguments get a full and fair hearing?

 

[dtt]

We might get some new rkba case law very soon. The California opinion requested by the Supreme Court is due today for the Silveira v. Lockyer case. http://www.keepandbeararms.org/Silveira/SCtReq.asp

 

[Quartus]

Even more important, as a practical matter if you blatantly defy and piss off the judge, he or she will probably find a dozen ways to screw you and your client during the course of the trial, many of which probably will not be seriously reviewed on appeal.

Yup. Couldn't be more wrong, but reality. Judges who do so should do prison time. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

So when, or how, do Stanley's muzzled arguments get a full and fair hearing?

Well, I think that's exactly the point. The purpose of the judge's instructions is to make sure that they don't.

 

[labgrade]

"the 2nd Amendment only applies to congress' ability to pass federal laws that infringe on RKBA, it does NOT apply to your individual right. Why do the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to individual rights? Because of the 14th Amendment. Do I like it? No. Does a lowly little municipal judge in Denver have any power to change it? No."

Having only skimmed the first page briefly, I find this post most stupid.

The 14th cannot trump the first ten. Simply put, these ARE the basis for a recognition of personal freedoms the guvmint (fed or state) ever infringe upon.

Too, CO's constitution also states (go look it up for yourself) that the right to keep and bear arms .... shall not be called into question (brief mention about no CCW - which Stanley didn't do).

According to your premise, if a court ruled that they can kill anyone, anytime, that wouldn't be a violation of the 5th?

The first are a contract with the guv & if they feel like violating whenever their whim chooses, I'd suspect so can we = "violate the contract."

Sheesh! You reall do have no clue whatso ever on the founding of this country - do you?

 

[Wildalaska]

I am not ashamed to say, I CARE and if my rights were so blatantly trampled as this mans, I would come out shooting.

Yep thats just what we need..

WildsighAlaska

 

[Ladybug]

labgrade,
I think it, if nothing else, it would be common curtesy to read all the posts in a thread before going around calling people stupid.
I would then point out that YOU are the one that has no idea what you're talking about - but then again, we've been through all this and I'm pretty tired of hashing this one out.

hammer4nc,
you are right that cases are not retried in appellate courts in that questions of evidence are not brought up again. Questions of law, however, are. For example, if someone is on trial for murder, it would be the trial court that would decide whether there was enough evidence to convict the person, etc. - that's what the jury would do. Or in the case at hand, it would be up to the judge to decide if the guy violated the law that says he cannot carry a gun. But then on appeal, the defendant can say that the questions presented to the jury, for example, applied the law incorrectly. In that sense, the appeals court has the power to look at the case again - and either reverse or affirm the earlier courts ruling, or remand it back for another trial. If someone were to challenge the constitutionality of a law, on the other hand, the case could be taken directly to the supreme court -- IF the supreme court decides they want to hear it.

 

[SteelyDan]

Hammer:

If either side believes that the other side intends to make arguments and present evidence about a matter that is irrelevant or otherwise legally objectionable, they may bring a motion, often weeks before the trial, asking the judge to exclude all such evidence, arguments, questions, etc. Typically, the parties will submit legal memoranda on the issue and the judge will issue a written order granting the motion, or denying it, or somewhere in between.

Once the order is issued, the party that lost the motion can ask for immediate appellate review (very rarely granted, until after the case is over), or they can ask the judge to reconsider his or her decision (I've seen this happen several times). But once you get to trial, you are best served by complying with the order, whatever it says.

After the trial and any post-trial motions are over, you can then appeal to the appellate courts. One of your primary grounds for reversal on appeal will presumably be the trial judge's ruling on the pre-trial motion. The appellate courts will have a clear record of the judge's ruling, and the reasons for it, based on the order itself.

 

[LawDog]

Allegations of stupidity. Veiled insults.

Lights out.

LawDog