User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:18:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Give me a break, just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law. Mostly correct, but then there's, or used to be, jury nullification. Edited to add a simple definition of j.n.: "The law is bullshit, let him go!" And last I checked jury nullification is illegal and grounds for disbarrment for the lawyer who argues it. References, please? About jury nullification of a charge because the law it is charged under is not Constitutional? OR do you think only the Supreme Court can think for me? Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:22:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Quoted: Yes, Marbury vs. Madison established the principle of judicial review if I recall and basically said that the Supreme Court will determine ultimately what laws are repugnant to the Constitution. Therefore, should they choose not to act then de facto the law is not repugnant. With reference to gun control, [red]the Miller decision[/red] certainly affirmed that the state has a role in determining the extent of the 2nd amendment as it relates to citizens. Until such time as SCOTUS revisits the decision or issue it stands and since SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law, gun control is not repugnant in the aforementioned sense. That dog won't hunt, either. U.S. won U.S. v. Miller simply because Miller was financially unable to present his side before the Supreme Court..... Scott Because the defendent couldn't mount the defense he wanted to in court it somehow makes the caselaw any less binding? Could you present a legally binding cite to that effect? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:23:26 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And last I checked jury nullification is illegal and grounds for disbarrment for the lawyer who argues it. Whoever told you this lied to you. J/N was designed as ultimate check against unjust laws. Read on: [url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22jury+nullification%22[/url] Thanks, followed the link you provided... third or fourth site down I found this: [b] "It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law, and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court. Sparf v. United States, 15 S.Ct. 273, 282 (1895). [/b] The correct principle of law, as I shall demonstrate, is given in the dissenting opinion of this case, starting on page 296. This dissent is the one frequently quoted by FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association, Post Office Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843. That dissent holds that, "The judge, by instructing the jury that they were bound to accept the law as given to them by the court, denied their right to decide the law." Sparf at 297 (dissent). Dissents are not followed as "law" by succeeding courts, they are merely disagreements with the holding of the majority." [b] So you are arguing your point of view from the dissenting decision, not the majority decision? [/b] Try again. Just because a judge doesn't have to inform a jury of their right to nullify an unjust law, does not take that right away from the jury..... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:25:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thanks, followed the link you provided... third or fourth site down I found this: Very well, now read all the information posted at the remaining 12,099 websites ;) I don't [b] NEED [/b] to read the other 12,099 websites, I cited the applicable Constitutional case law, the only binding opinion. I found the [b]ONE[/b] that will put a rusty nail into the wobbly leg of my shaky stand for a bit, so..... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:27:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Give me a break, just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law. Mostly correct, but then there's, or used to be, jury nullification. Edited to add a simple definition of j.n.: "The law is bullshit, let him go!" And last I checked jury nullification is illegal and grounds for disbarrment for the lawyer who argues it. References, please? About jury nullification of a charge because the law it is charged under is not Constitutional? OR do you think only the Supreme Court can think for me? Scott Once [b] AGAIN [/b] Scott, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Article 3 of the Constitution as further affirmed by Marbury vs. Madison sets the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority. That means their ruling is the final word. Not your's, not mine, THEIR'S! Got it? I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than that. Now, this doesn't mean you have to like it or agree with it, but you as a US citizen are bound by it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:28:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Hiram, you're a really smart guy and all, but I think that your faith in the legal system might be misplaced. Keep in mind that our Constitution does not limit what we can own, yet the courts have found it legal to limit what we own, even going so far as to find that our founding fathers did not allow for private ownership. (Yeah right, like the gov needed to spell out a right for the states! [rolleyes])
Anyway, considering my rights aren't infringed upon to the degree that people in CT, MD, NJ or KA are, I don't have much of an issue here. HOWEVER, if banned tomorrow, who here would willingly hand in our guns? I think your the Emerson comclusion was ILLEGAL and has NOTHING to do with reasonable regulations since ANYONE can get a restraining order and fuck up the life of any good law abiding man. The system is not there for us, its there to prosecute us and limit the amount of guns on the streets. I think the road you're going down is exactly the way the libs want you to think. You're allowing "slight" infringements based on their rational relation basis, which in fact have NO rational relation to preventing gun violence. Hiram, I also think you're WAAAAAY off base if for a second you believe that NYS's licensing scheme is legitimate. There is no reason for them not allowing concealed carry or even requiring a process that takes up to 6 months with maximum intrusion on one's personal life. I'd prefer to get a gun from a cousin in NC to defend my family here than to wait 6 months for this buffoon's process. (IF I HAD TO.) I also think that its ridiculous that you can go from one part of NY (Nassau, Suffolk + upstate) into city limits and you just became a defacto felon for possessing an AR15 with a couple hicaps. Laws like that are ASSININE. IMO they are illegitimate and illegal. Why should I be limited in carrying a side arm in Manhattan, where I'm more likely to be put in harm's way? Why should I give up my right to self defense just because I took a 30 minute ride on the LIRR? Now I pose this question to you... if NYS banned AR15's, M1A's, SAR's, Ruger 10/22's and other semi's tomorrow, WOULD YOU GET RID OF YOUR RIFLES? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:29:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You forget, I am not the one screaming that all gun control is unconstitutional. I believe that the state has the right to regulate even our most sacred rights to an extent. I don't believe that requiring a pistol permit is in and of itself unconstitutional. I believe that a process which unfairly administers such a system to be perhaps unconstitutional. Are you a closet Democrap? What part of "...shall not be infringed" do [b]YOU[/b] not understand? Scott What part of the SCOTUS rulings that no right is absolute do you not understand? I am not a closet democrat. I happen to be an extremely conservative Republican who has taken the time to actually read the great works that our founding fathers embraced, has given critical thought to the issue and can see how reasonable regulation is not necessarily an infringement. Come to me with more than soundbites and lets examine this issue with a little more than cursory expedience. Come to me with more than a non-answer..... Scott EDIT: Typo |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:29:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Scott, I'm sorry but what isn't clear about this?
"It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law, [b] and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court. [/b] Sparf v. United States, 15 S.Ct. 273, 282 (1895). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:31:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Me, I'm just a bullshitter! I don't own a gun unless you consider my Red Ryder. LOL
Being civil disobedient and stupid are two different things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:33:13 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: ...can see how [red]reasonable regulation[/red] is not necessarily an infringement. There is no such thing as "reasonable regulation" of an [b]UNINFRINGABLE[/b] right. You hang around DU too much or something? "Reasonable regulation" "reasonable regulation". How do you think [b]22,000+[/b] unConstitutional laws are "reasonable"? Scott P.S. I'm through with this crap. Last I saw of Hiram, he was a respected member of this forum. Now he acts like Kaoma's father or something..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:35:23 PM EDT
[#11]
We'll follow your lead. Honest, we will![/quote]
That's what Dan Shoemaker's "men" told him. He went to jail by himself. AB |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:36:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You forget, I am not the one screaming that all gun control is unconstitutional. I believe that the state has the right to regulate even our most sacred rights to an extent. I don't believe that requiring a pistol permit is in and of itself unconstitutional. I believe that a process which unfairly administers such a system to be perhaps unconstitutional. Are you a closet Democrap? What part of "...shall not be infringed" do [b]YOU[/b] not understand? Scott What part of the SCOTUS rulings that no right is absolute do you not understand? I am not a closet democrat. I happen to be an extremely conservative Republican who has taken the time to actually read the great works that our founding fathers embraced, has given critical thought to the issue and can see how reasonable regulation is not necessarily an infringement. Come to me with more than soundbites and lets examine this issue with a little more than cursory expedience. Come to me with mroe than a non-answer..... Scott Scott I don't consider it a non-answer. I've been very clear in my responses, citing precedent, the political philosophical works the founding fathers based their beliefs on, rationally debating every point raised including jury nullification, Marbury vs. Madison, etc. I think I have responded to every question posed, emotional and intellectual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:37:40 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: By the way, in case you were wondering what I'm up to, look up the words gadfly... Gad, prefix, means to goad. Gad-fly according to Websters new world dictionary 1956, means either 1) large fly such as horsefly, or 2) One who annoys or irritates others. which are you? Board rules, prohibited conduct; 6) Pure trolling. Either to piss someone off or simply for your personal enjoyment. If you become a distraction or disrupt the sites day to day activities, you will be removed. Again, which are you??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:46:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: ...can see how [red]reasonable regulation[/red] is not necessarily an infringement. There is no such thing as "reasonable regulation" of an [b]UNINFRINGABLE[/b] right. You hang around DU too much or something? "Reasonable regulation" "reasonable regulation". How do you think [b]22,000+[/b] unConstitutional laws are "reasonable"? Scott P.S. I'm through with this crap. Last I saw of Hiram, he was a respected member of this forum. Now he acts like Kaoma's father or something..... Scott, once again, show me the rulings that say the rights laid forth in the Constitution are absolute. I'm betting you can't find one. I will however bet that you can find plenty that argue no right is absolute. Balzac, if my toys are banned I will move to where they are not... I believe that was what I posted earlier... you have three choices - obey the laws, disobey and risk the consequences or [b] MOVE [/b]. Once again, I don't like most of our gun laws any more than you all do. I do however have no problem with certain firearms laws. I don't think people being treated for psychotic disorders that pose a danger to themselves or others should be allowed to own firearms. I don't believe that convicted violent felons should. I have no problem with instant checks that are truly instant and all records are destroyed. I have no problem with a permit system that is shall issue. I do have a problem with NY's system in which individual judges are free to decide what restrictions to place on permits. However the State Court of Appeals has ruled the issuing of permits is a ministerial function and is thus somewhat discretionary. I wish the Supreme Court would take up a claim such as this so they could rule it unconstitutional... but they have chosen to relegate such decisions to the states. A bad call, but one they made and the one which determines how the process works. And Scott as for your insults, well I truly don't care what you think. I have been respectful in my arguments and if you read back I invited you all to look up the word gadfly... one who intentionally incites controversy for the purpose of intellectual exploration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:48:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: By the way, in case you were wondering what I'm up to, look up the words gadfly... Gad, prefix, means to goad. Gad-fly according to Websters new world dictionary 1956, means either 1) large fly such as horsefly, or 2) One who annoys or irritates others. which are you? Board rules, prohibited conduct; 6) Pure trolling. Either to piss someone off or simply for your personal enjoyment. If you become a distraction or disrupt the sites day to day activities, you will be removed. Again, which are you??? How about to explore a controversial issue in depth to gain a better understanding? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:56:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: if my toys are banned I will move to where they are not... I believe that was what I posted earlier... you have three choices - obey the laws, disobey and risk the consequences or [b] MOVE [/b]. A perfect illustration as to why we will one day loose every right. "If I dont like it I will run away!!!!!" And btw- to answer you question about Marbury v Madison, and to why you dont have to follow unConstitutional laws, it is easy, it is illegal for an agency of the government to enforce an unconstitutional law or decision. And the SCOTUS has said that you can resist the use of force to enforce an illegal act (be it law or executive order or what not) by the use of force up to and including the killing of the officers attempting to enforce said illegal act. Granted I would be VERY careful about deciding something was unConstitutional before the SCOTUS has ruled, but the precedent is there, it just takes somebody with the balls and money to force the issue. Too bad that will not be you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:05:48 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: And the SCOTUS has said that you can resist the use of force to enforce an illegal act (be it law or executive order or what not) by the use of force up to and including the killing of the officers attempting to enforce said illegal act. Granted I would be VERY careful about deciding something was unConstitutional before the SCOTUS has ruled, but the precedent is there, it just takes somebody with the balls and money to force the issue. Too bad that will not be you. You've just argued my point, you are not obligated to follow unconstitutional laws, but only SCOTUS may say with final authority what is and is not. You may oppose the laws by violating them and face possible prosecution in an effort to bring the issue before SCOTUSm ultimately to have it argued and ruled upon. That was what this thread was about. Read back and everyone said it wasn't worth it, that you could not prevail and the consequences would be devastating. I guess everyone who does not oppose the "unconstitutional" laws by violating them is ball-less, or maybe they are all just broke? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:08:34 PM EDT
[#18]
HR,
My apologies. I missed your gadfly comment until someone else highlighted it in a response. Y'all know I never lose my temper usually. (Hopes no one remembers last night.....) Was this psrt of your desire to goad us? [url]http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-12-29-0010.html[/url] [url]http://www.canoe.ca/WinnipegNews/ws.ws-12-29-0007.html[/url] Scott P.S. Sorry again. However, I still believe that just because the Supreme Court says a judge has no obligation to fully inform a jury, that jury still can act accordingly..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:12:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: I have little faith in the abilities of the courts of today to apply the Constitution. The United States Constitution is a joke and no long applies to many subjects in this former republic. I have but one life to give and have carefully selected the hill I'm willing to die for. It matters not if you or anyone else knows of that hill nor of my death. Fighting city hall is one thing and taking on the current police force from the roof tops is another. The time will come soon enough, few are in a hurry to bring the death of this nation once ruled by laws to a start. Holy crap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:17:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Do you boys realize, that the Canadians (the CANADIANS!) are showing bigger balls than you are?
[url]http://www.canada.com/vancouver/news/story.asp?id={D3344360-97A5-42C7-AADD-2DD38D93F881}[/url] STELLARTON, N.S. (CP) -- Allister Muir says he'll risk going to jail rather than register his gun. Gently holding his lever-action Browning deer rifle, the 46-year-old pizzeria owner and longtime hunter stands in his living room before the neatly decorated Christmas tree and the rows of photos of his three children. In just over a week, the Canadian Firearms Centre wants the heavyset Nova Scotian and an estimated 2.3 million other firearms owners to have applied to register all of their estimated 7.9 million guns. It won't happen, says Muir, who owns six guns he calls "the tools" he needs to fulfil his passion for hunting deer in the woodlands of Nova Scotia. "I'm never going to register." He didn't meet the Jan. 1, 2001, deadline to apply to the Miramichi, N.B.,-based firearms centre for his firearms licence. He also doesn't intend to apply for the Jan. 1, 2003, deadline to register details about his rifles. Muir and other opponents say they believe registration won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns, wastes huge amounts of public money and will eventually lead to confiscation of firearms by the authorities. In Ottawa, a spokesman for the centre says those refusing to comply are a dwindling minority. In just the last week, said David Austin, special communications adviser for the centre, about 200,000 more guns were registered, bringing the total to about 5.5 million. "Reality bites," Austin said in an interview. "So here's reality. Ninety per cent of the firearms owners in this country have licences. Seventy per cent have registration certificates already." But Muir says the truth is nobody really knows how many people haven't registered their guns. He estimates that at least 300,000 unlicensed gun owners have a total of about one million unregistered firearms. If police were to stop Muir while he's carrying one of his rifles on a deer-hunting expedition and request his licence, he knows the possible penalties. In the new year, an unlicensed gun owner with an unregistered gun faces Criminal Code charges that could lead to a $2,000 fine and/or six months in jail. The Crown can also elect to prosecute for a maximum five years in prison, depending on whether there have been prior offences. "I've been talking to my wife about it for at least three years now trying to prepare for the fact I might have to go," said Muir, who has consulted a lawyer about possible Charter of Rights defences in a legal case. "This is all I think about. I know I'm prepared to do whatever it takes." Muir's declaration of civil disobedience is one signal of still-active resistance to Ottawa's gun registry laws. There are others. By this Saturday, a rally of people opposed to the Firearms Act is expected in a farmer's field in North Battleford, Sask. The protest will feature an effigy of Prime Minister Jean Chretien pouring monopoly money down a toilet. The action is a reference to the inflated price tag for gun registration, which has mushroomed from an initial estimate of $2 million to $1 billion by 2005. Meanwhile, groups such as the National Firearms Association are urging gun owners to write "unknown" in registry questionnaires when asked to describe their firearms, forcing added administrative costs on the centre. Besides Muir, there are also activists across the country willing to publicly state they'll never register. Wayne Fields, president of the Unregistered Unlicensed Firearms Association, an Alberta-based gun group, is among the holdouts. "I don't think law enforcement has the will to enforce this at this time," said the resident of Windsor, Ont. "I'm a prime candidate, but I'm not that fearful. If they were going to come after me they would have a long time ago." Similarly, Phil Hewkin, a resident of Prince George, B.C., owns 17 unregistered guns. "I won't bury my guns or hide them like some kind of modern day pirate. I will continue to hunt and target practice and come and get me, I'm not going anywhere," he said during a telephone interview. "If police or a SWAT team shows up at my door to confiscate my legally acquired property that I've owned for years and years, I'll refuse to let them in. I won't welcome them into my house to take my property." Austin said this kind of viewpoint is vocal but small, while most Canadians are unwilling to gain a criminal record. "That shows up if you want a job or want to cross the border. I don't think people want to risk that," he said. "You will find out a lot of people opposed have already registered and are licensed.'' At the gun clubs and in the hunting community, there's evidence that some opponents are quietly either sending in the paperwork or filling out the Web page form. Jim Hill, a 53-year-old former Mountie, said he objects strongly to the licensing and registration systems, but will send in his forms anyway. "I'm a former RCMP officer," said the resident of Fletcher's Lake, N.S. "Regardless of how onerous I might think these laws are, they're still the law and it would go against my nature not to abide by them." After the deadline passes, don't expect a quick crackdown from police, said Vince Westwick, legal counsel to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. There's a six-month grace period for people who've applied but haven't received their certificate. "Are police likely to start culling the system to see who hasn't registered and start conducting investigations, I don't think so," he said. He said if police have entered a home for another reason and see a firearm, they may ask to see registration papers. They also might question hunters who have visible firearms. Muir says he's ready for that eventuality and ready to declare he doesn't have the paperwork. "It's not just for me. It's for my family ... How far does this go? When does the individual snuffed out of this? How far do we go before this activity is prohibited?" Quick facts: The Canadian Firearms Centre says that as of Jan. 1, Bill C-68 requires owners of firearms to be licensed and to have registered their firearms. Total number of guns in Canada: 7.9 million. Total registered as of Dec. 18: 5.5 million. Original deadline for owner's licences: Jan. 1, 2001. Cost to register: $18 for a paper application. Online registration is free. Registration requirements: Gun owner must have a licence first, which requires a police check as well as a course in firearms safety. Grace period: Ottawa has announced a six-month grace period due to the backlog at the firearms centre. But it still wants licensed gun owners to apply before Jan. 1. After the deadline: Gun owners can still apply for a licence and register their firearms. There are no penalties for being late. Arguments for having registry: Allows police to track guns. Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police say it will encourage better storage and safety. Arguments against: Costs have ballooned; some gun groups argue registration does little to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Source: Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Canadian Firearms Centre Web site; Law-abiding Unregistered Firearms Association. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:18:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: And the SCOTUS has said that you can resist the use of force to enforce an illegal act (be it law or executive order or what not) by the use of force up to and including the killing of the officers attempting to enforce said illegal act. Granted I would be VERY careful about deciding something was unConstitutional before the SCOTUS has ruled, but the precedent is there, it just takes somebody with the balls and money to force the issue. Too bad that will not be you. You've just argued my point, you are not obligated to follow unconstitutional laws, but only SCOTUS may say with final authority what is and is not. You may oppose the laws by violating them and face possible prosecution in an effort to bring the issue before SCOTUSm ultimately to have it argued and ruled upon. That was what this thread was about. Read back and everyone said it wasn't worth it, that you could not prevail and the consequences would be devastating. I guess everyone who does not oppose the "unconstitutional" laws by violating them is ball-less, or maybe they are all just broke? Yes to a point we agree, I will go on to say I feel it is more everyones DUTY to resist EVERY unConstitutional act. And I will disagree with one other point: The SCOTUS is NOT the final arbitrator. The answer to that is the first seven words of the Constitution: [b]We The People of the United States...[/b] If it becomes necessary "We the People" can always replace the entire damn thing. No it would not be pleasant thing to do, but neither was the Revolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:20:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Its cool... I miss the philosophical debates I used to have in my philosophy and ConLaw classes. I happen to disagree with many SCOTUS rulings and hope to hell GWB is able to put some ultra-conservative strict-constructionists on the court. I also wish we would get some good test cases in front of SCOTUS.
Emerson was a non-starter because he never challenged the restraining order on the grounds he posed no threat at any time to his wife. Had he challenged it it would likely have been vacated and there would have been no criminal offense. The recent ruling with the gun dealer and the ammo in Mexico was not argued on the issue it should have been. They argued funding for the process used to gain a release from disability. What they should have challenged on, and what they very well may, is whether a felony conviction in Mexico is binding in the United States and whether the offense would have qualified as a felony conviction here... which it would not. I truly believe that no right is absolute, that the state may regulate to a degree, but there must be a compelling state interest to do so... most gun laws do not meet that test and should be overturned by the courts. If anyone thought that I was a DU sympathizer... you were sorely mistaken. I just want us to go out there with more than what part of shall not infring do you not understand. A well studied anti would throw everything I just threw at you and more, you have to be prepared. Don't just cite the founding fathers, study the works which they embraced to form their opinions. Be able to debate the Leviathan. Understand the differences in the conflict they faced with England versus what we face today and be able to point similarities and differences. Sadly, while our beloved Constitution is on our side we have to be able to prove it to many who have been brainwashed, and that won't be easy. They;ve been lied to for years and won't see the truth unless we are prepared to face down every lie the opposition puts forth... Anyway, don't hate the playah... hate the game [;)]. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:29:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Isn't there something in the Constitution about the three branches of government checking and balancing each other? To keep one branch from having "the ultimate say"?
Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:35:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Isn't there something in the Constitution about the three branches of government checking and balancing each other? To keep one branch from having "the ultimate say"? Scott Yup, SCOTUS rules on two main areas... disputes between the states and the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature and enacted by the president. The reason that members of SCOTUS have a life tenure, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, is to ensure that there is sign off on multiple fronts and that they are later free from political influence since they need not seek another term. This is supposed to lead to an independent and impartial judiciary. Incidently, one of the reasons that lower federal ourts are more politicized is that they do also have life tenure, but they are jokeying for a nomination to a higher court... therefore they are looking to make themselves appealing to a particular party or school of judicial thought in hopes of making a name for themselves. This is why they often make outrageous rulings... it can not break them, they have life tenure... but it could be the ruling that propels them further. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:36:36 PM EDT
[#25]
You know what, it just occured to me why the gungrabber hate the NRA so much. It isn't just their political muscle.
It's that they transformed, in the space of a few years, a nation of crotch grabbing unwashed trigger happy rednecks into a nation of crotch grabbing unwashed trigger happy rednecks with some civic sensibilities. Almost singlehandedly the NRA educated American gunowners about all the things that were previously the sole domain of the overeducated liberals. An educated enemy is the greatest fear of the liberals. The liberals want to meet gunowners who will curse, threaten and act like maniacs when challenged. The liberals dread meeting gunowners who can discuss legal precedent, what the FFs really intended, and demographics of a criminal population. With all the complaining about the NRA, I would hazard a guess that no other organization has ever given an interest group so much solid information to combat a political threat, and quickly and efficiently disseminated it. Can you think of any better reason to join? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 5:42:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Amen Doublefeed... the most deadly weapon that any man can have is his wit, guile and intellect...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 6:14:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: You know what, it just occured to me why the gungrabber hate the NRA so much. It isn't just their political muscle. It's that they transformed, in the space of a few years, a nation of crotch grabbing unwashed trigger happy rednecks into a nation of crotch grabbing unwashed trigger happy rednecks with some civic sensibilities. Almost singlehandedly the NRA educated American gunowners about all the things that were previously the sole domain of the overeducated liberals. An educated enemy is the greatest fear of the liberals. The liberals want to meet gunowners who will curse, threaten and act like maniacs when challenged. The liberals dread meeting gunowners who can discuss legal precedent, what the FFs really intended, and demographics of a criminal population. With all the complaining about the NRA, I would hazard a guess that no other organization has ever given an interest group so much solid information to combat a political threat, and quickly and efficiently disseminated it. Can you think of any better reason to join? Horseshit!! The nra educate on the 2nd Amendment?? I have yet to see a statement from nra that the 2nd is about the peoples right to defend themselves from tyrannical govt. They avoid it like the plague! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 6:18:08 PM EDT
[#28]
You get America's First Freedom?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 6:18:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Since my GF is making me spend quality time with her [rolleyes], I'm only able to check this inbetween her bathroom or food breaks.
As far as MOVING to another state...well, how the hell is a BAR passed attorney able to tear up his roots and BAR admital and go to another state to start over? Its not feasible, which is why silent and illegal dissent will follow such an illegal decision by the state or fed gov. If an all out ban does take place or federal licensing does take place, you won't have to worry about the laws as recent men have created them, because the masses will not stand for it. When the government loses trust in the people, the people should lose ALL trust in the gov. Read into that as you may, just realize that moving isn't an option for many people and especially not myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 6:27:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Balzac, you'll be glad to know that most states will accept your NYS bar card... with a few exceptions. At least that is what my attorney informed me when asked. He said the main exceptions were Florida due to the focus on estate and elder law and California for entertainment and associated copywrite issues. Otherwise, you should be good to go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 6:28:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Most states (not NY, Cal, or Florida) let you waive into their bar after 4, 5 or 6 years in another state bar.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 8:04:12 PM EDT
[#32]
"Most states" require a bunch of years experience first (not always as simple as 5 or 6), however the main problem lies in clients. If I have a $500k/year client revenue for my firm and I'm on a partnership track, how could I throw that away for another state where my future is unknown?
Running is not a solution, its just begging the problem to follow you. Some people can pick up and go, but considering my family, GF (future wife) and dog, how can I make a rational choice to go over gun laws, when I can defy them and take a stand here? Now considering my lack of ability to turn tail and run, how willing is everyone else to pack their property, family and dog into the UHaul and move to a gun friendly state? How long will you be able to run from the next liberal cocksucker president who bans all AW's outright? Will you then rely on a corrupt supreme court to defy our constitution once again? The power lies in the people, I hope noone ever forgets that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 8:49:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Will you then rely on a corrupt supreme court to defy our constitution once again? The power lies in the people, I hope noone ever forgets that. Planning on applying for admittance to the Supreme Court Bar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 9:01:53 PM EDT
[#34]
My idea of civil disobedience would be to take 5-10 hits of LSD, load up the AK, and stand naked in front of the local cop shop shouting "THE REVOLUTION STARTS HERE, COPPERS!!!!" Whew! Can you imagine the rush?[:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 9:04:50 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: My idea of civil disobedience would be to take 5-10 hits of LSD, load up the AK, and stand naked in front of the local cop shop shouting "THE REVOLUTION STARTS HERE, COPPERS!!!!" Whew! Can you imagine the rush?[:D] Come up with something original! Bill Cooper already did that ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 9:58:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: My idea of civil disobedience would be to take 5-10 hits of LSD, load up the AK, and stand naked in front of the local cop shop shouting "THE REVOLUTION STARTS HERE, COPPERS!!!!" Whew! Can you imagine the rush?[:D] Come up with something original! Bill Cooper already did that ;) Whodis Bill Cooper who stole my stunt already? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 10:06:24 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: There is no way for us to fight gun laws thru civil disobedience without facing prison terms and felony convictions. On top of that, purposely tring to get arrested for gun law violations isn't gonna get any positive attention for our cause. All it is gonna do is ruin your own life. In fact it will hurt our cause because it will be negitively portrayed in the media. You're going about it the wrong way, folks. We should take a page from the JBT's book on jack-booted thugginess: numbers. Stop thinking about doing it individually where it's not going to make a difference; do it [b]together[/b], in significant numbers. Stuff like walking down the street with loaded, uncased, AR15s. Depending on where you live that could be hundreds or thousands of people. That will send quite a powerful message and you won't get arrested for it (like a few dozen cops armed with pistols would try to arrest hundreds of people armed with AR15s). Numbers, folks. It's all about numbers. Numbers freed us from British oppression, numbers freed the blacks from oppression numbers will free us from anti-constitutional gun laws. We need to get ORGANIZED! Gun owners are *not* organized - we pay groups like the NRA to organize on your behalf who then compromise on (y)our behalf. If we were half as organized as the anti-gun liberals we could wipe the gun laws off the books even in California. There would be no need for an armed struggle. So we gonna do it, or what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 10:15:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Cross post from GlockTalk:
[url]http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123979&perpage=25&pagenumber=1[/url] Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 10:23:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: IIRC SCOTUS ruled in Emerson that the domestic violence provisions of the 94 Anti-Crime bill were reasonable and precluded someone under a restraining order from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Yup, I think its bullshit, but it is the law of the land and was found to be constitutional. You have your facts incorrect. SCOTUS didn't rule on Emerson, a federal appeals court did. SCOTUS refused to hear the case; they neither overturned nor affirmed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 6:41:17 AM EDT
[#40]
If that is the case than I stand corrected and thank you. I thought they took the case up and affirmed the decision. In either event, their refusal to hear the case would be a tacit approval of the lower court's ruling since it allows the ruling to stand. In this case no action = action.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 7:46:56 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: If that is the case than I stand corrected and thank you. I thought they took the case up and affirmed the decision. In either event, their refusal to hear the case would be a tacit approval of the lower court's ruling since it allows the ruling to stand. In this case no action = action. From an [i]amicus[/i] brief: On August 25, 1999, petitioner appeared at a police station and [red]informed the officer on duty that he owned semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms.[/red] Petitioner stated that the firearms were not licensed and that [red]the federal government lacked authority to require him to obtain a license.[/red] Law enforcement officials subsequently found two fully automatic weapons in petitioner’s car and house, along with literature describing how to convert a semiautomatic firearm to an automatic weapon. Petitioner admitted possession of the guns. Petitioner was indicted for possessing two machineguns, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Pet. App. 3. Section 922(o)provides, with exceptions not applicable here, that “it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.” 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(1). A person who “knowingly violates” Section 922(o) is subject to a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years. 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2). [red]After a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty and was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment.[/red] The court of appeals affirmed. And SCOTUS remains silent. Civil disobedience is useful only if one of two conditions exist: 1) A sufficiently large number of people are [i]involved[/i] in open civil disobedience, and/or: 2) The behavior of the disobedient is supported by a significant portion of the society, or by a group external to the society that can bring pressure to bear on that society. In India, Gandhi had the international press on his side, and they brought the pressure of the international community to bear. The British public considered the Indians "wogs in rebellion." In the 1960's, Martin Luther King had both the press and a significant percentage of the population sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. In the Soviet Union, and in China, and in Cambodia, and elsewhere - nobody outside heard about it and nobody outside cared. We've had fifty years of demonization of guns and gun owners. Gun owners are a [i]minority[/i] in this country. We're the new Jews and Blacks. We're the victims of a decades-long slow motion hate crime. It's OK to pick on us. We're rednecked single-toothed inbreds with two-digit IQ's who swill beer and shoot up street signs. We're old men who shoot horses with 12 year-old riders thinking that they're deer. We're angry white males who walk into a University and shoot professors. We're mad dogs who shoot at random strangers from the trunks of cars. We're wife-abusers who kill to keep our women from escaping our power. The press is NOT on our side. The majority of the population leans more against us than for us. Active, in-your-face civil disobedience will NOT garner popular support. Disobeying laws WE believe are unconstitutional will get us what it got John Lee Haney: a prison sentence. Or, if the BATF gets there first, dead. In the not too distant future, the Supreme Court is going to [i]have[/i] to take up the issue of the meaning of the Second Amendment. If the Court is in the majority conservative and constructionist, then I hold some hope that it will find that it protects an individual right, and that the 14th Amendment prohibits the States from infringing on that right (though they must grant cert on a case involving [i]state[/i] law in order to do so, and the lawyers must bring up the 14th Amendment themselves - the Court will not do so of its own.) I hold [i][b]NO[/i][/b] hope that they will overturn all gun control laws, because I understand that the 5th Circuit Court was right: There are no [i]absolute[/i] rights. A law sufficiently narrow and sufficiently necessary [i]can be[/i] constitutional. The problem is the "slippery slope" and how far down it we have progressed. I believe we've slid much too far. Many believe we haven't crossed the edge of the slope yet. Many more think "Slope? What slope? I don't see no slope." As Doublefeed pointed out, the NRA has done yeoman's service [i]educating[/i] gun owners as to the history of the right to arms. An [i]educated[/i] electorate has been essential in preventing our right from being stripped from us completely in the name of "public safety." But if the Supreme Court decides that in the name of "public safety" the right to arms is [i]not[/i] an individual one, and that the states are free to ban anything they like, then in my mind the covenant between government and the People will have been broken. I will continue to live my life as I have with one exception: When they come for mine, I intend to take some of them with me. Perhaps the cost of confiscation will cause the government to rethink just how much it wants to disarm The People. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 8:16:53 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Whodis Bill Cooper who stole my stunt already? [url]http://www.williamcooper.com/[/url] Deputy Injured and Suspect Killed in Shoot-Out 11-06-2001 An Apache County sheriff's deputy was shot in the head and is in guarded condition. It happened during a shoot-out with a man with militia ties. That man, William Cooper, was shot and killed. It happened late Monday night in the small town of Eagar, Arizona ... 230 miles northeast of Phoenix. Deputies were serving William Cooper an arrest warrant for assaulting one of his neighbors. The federal government also wanted him for tax evasion. Cooper had warned officers and federal agents that if they ever came for him, he would not go down without a gun battle. On his website, Bill Cooper claimed the federal government has targeted his family. He said the nazi Gestapo had threatened him. He believed in UFO’s and he didn't believe in paying taxes. Cooper wrote if authorities ever tried to arrest him, they would be met with armed resistance. He ran a small radio show called An Hour of the Time - out of Eagar, Arizona. The focus was predominantly anti-government. Cooper was well known in militia circles. Timothy McVeigh was a fan of Cooper's, he even reportedly tried to recruit cooper to help him at one point before the Oklahoma City bombing. But early Tuesday morning - deputies had a warrant - but as promised, Cooper wasn't going quietly. Cooper was shot and killed. Apache County Deputy Rob Marinez took two bullets to the head. He's expected to survive. The deputy used to live in Mesa and friends there say he's the sort of cop you want to have around if things get tough. Deputy Marinez is married and has three children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 9:20:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: I don't believe that requiring a pistol permit is in and of itself unconstitutional. So do you support all registration of firearms? Do you believe that registration leads to confiscation? Why do I need a permit or registration to exercise my RIGHT? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 9:37:33 AM EDT
[#44]
Slippery slope people....slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 9:44:26 AM EDT
[#45]
I obey the law when it is convenient. As far as the stinking pile of crap in Washington is concerned, they are an occupying force, not a Constitutional government. No, Hell No! I don't believe in Republicans or Democrats or the people that own them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 9:55:12 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: But if the Supreme Court decides that in the name of "public safety" the right to arms is [i]not[/i] an individual one, and that the states are free to ban anything they like, then [red]in my mind the covenant between government and the People will have been broken.[/red] I will continue to live my life as I have with one exception: When they come for mine, I intend to take some of them with me. Perhaps the cost of confiscation will cause the government to rethink just how much it wants to disarm The People. Kbaker, that whole post was right on the money, but the last part tells me I'd be proud to call you "Brother"... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 10:27:52 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: So do you support all registration of firearms? Do you believe that registration leads to confiscation? Why do I need a permit or registration to exercise my RIGHT? Let's look at the much-maligned 1934 NFA requirements for owning a full-auto weapon: You must be fingerprinted, you must submit to an FBI background check, you must receive approval from a local head of law enforcement, you must pay a $200 "transfer tax" (which was HUGE in 1934) and you must be able to afford the weapon in question. Should you commit a felony offense of any kind, you must divest yourself of your registered full-auto weapon(s). Our side says "Since the 1934 NFA only ONE (1) legally owned full-auto weapon has been used in a crime! By a POLICE OFFICER! The law is USELESS!" Their side says: "See, registration WORKS!" Both sides have some validity to their arguments. The outcome of the NFA as it relates to full-auto weapons is that it [i]severely restricted[/i] the [b]market[/b] for such weapons - it made [i]legal[/i] ownership of them so onerous that few people would bother with them, so the market for manufacturers was drastically restricted. Also, it was passed [b]before[/b] a significant number of full-auto weapons were in general circulation (between the World Wars, when personal full-auto guns were comparatively rare.) Prior to passage of the '34 NFA, criminal use of full-auto weapons was not insignificant. After repeal of Prohibition, however, such useage dropped off dramatically. After passage of the NFA, the use of full-auto weapons in crime has become quite rare, and essentially all such crime (at least such crime not perpetrated by government employees) has been committed with unregistered or illegally converted weapons. Had the NFA not been passed, it can be argued that there would be a much larger number of full-auto weapons in general circulation, and that (due to availability) they would be used in crime much more often. Maybe, maybe not. Can't be proven either way. We say the NFA is useless, they say it worked. My problem with registration is that it [i][b]is[/b][/i] useless as a crime control measure in and of itself. Knowing who owns what doesn't do jack squat to [i]prevent[/i] crime. Further, registration can only be implemented [i]before[/i] a large quantity of arms are already in circulation, and it [i]requires[/i] [u]willful cooperation[/u] from the populace. (See Canada for what happens when you don't meet those two requirements.) What registration gets used for (and this is a wider problem than [i]confiscation[/i]) is [i]restriction of access[/i]. This is what happened in England [i]first[/i]. Relatively innocuous licensing and registration laws that started out as "revenue-gathering measures" (which is what the '34 NFA was touted to be, though we all know different) progressively made ownership more onerous, so fewer people bothered to own firearms. Eventually, so few were interested that it was a simple matter to convince the public that there was no legitimate need for firearms and confiscation could take place. Here we have a right to arms recognized and protected by the Second Amendment. Except for the last 50 years the opposition has been trying with various levels of success to [i]redefine[/i] just what the Second Amendment protects. In essence, to render it moot on the topic of an [i]individual[/i] right to arms. The courts of this country have been arguing almost since the passage of the Bill of Rights over whether felons can be disarmed, and over whether carrying [i]concealed[/i] weapons can be prohibited. This indicates to most people that the right to arms is [b]not[/b] an [i]absolute[/i] right. And we're back to the slippery slope. Here registration is being touted as a [i]crime control[/i] measure, though we all know that it's useless for this unless the [i]actual[/i] purpose is to [b]reduce the number of guns in circulation[/b]. (We've all heard the anti-gun cry of "there's too many guns!") And as we've seen in England, the only reduction it accomplishes is the number of guns in the hands of the [i]law-abiding[/i]. "When guns are outlawed..." Ideally, a concealed-carry permit will help to ensure that those who carry a firearm for self-defense have at least an aquaintance with the associated law, have at least a passing familiarity with weapons. In reality, the only thing a concealed-carry permit does is help the unarmed in a society feel a little better about armed citizens in their midst. So long as concealed-carry permits are "shall-issue" and the requirements to acquire are not onerous, I don't oppose them, even though I recongize them as a step down the slope (though in many cases they have been a step back [b]UP[/b] the slope from the previous laws.) However, I am adamantly opposed to regulations requiring government permission simply to [i]own[/i] a firearm, and I refuse to live anywhere that such requirements exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 10:54:19 AM EDT
[#48]
This isn't going to be a scholarly text, just had an idea that might be full of crappolla. Don't get all bent if you don't like it just say that's stupid.
A lot of people think drugs should be legalized, ignore the laws, and still go to jail. If the government wants the laws to stay; it won't matter how many people break the law. They'll just build more prisons. They'll just have to work harder to marginalize gun ownership and demonize gun owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 11:04:53 AM EDT
[#49]
Many of the gun grabbers have CCW's and firearms collections. You can bet that they will exempt themselves from any law that bans gun ownership.
Anti-gun laws are a power grab. Give up your weapons and you go from being a citizen to being a subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 11:10:54 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: This isn't going to be a scholarly text, just had an idea that might be full of crappolla. Don't get all bent if you don't like it just say that's stupid. A lot of people think drugs should be legalized, ignore the laws, and still go to jail. If the government wants the laws to stay; it won't matter how many people break the law. They'll just build more prisons. They'll just have to work harder to marginalize gun ownership and demonize gun owners. The vested interests actively WANT to maximize the number of people being handled by the Criminal Justice System. It's about paychecks and power. Ever think how many people profit from creating criminals? There's aa impetus to create criminals where none existed before. And as you say, the System wants more criminals. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
