User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:50:03 AM EDT
[#1]
It would take a man with balls the size of Texas to be the first one to step forward on this one.
All it takes is one, then one more, then one more. Soon, we'll have a movement underway. Of course, I could step forward but it wouldn't do us any good. Thus far I am obeying every firearm law, as far as I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:51:41 AM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:54:16 AM EDT
[#3]
[img]http://www.northbridgetraining.com/images/rick.gif[/img]
Rick Stanley Colorado freedom activist Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for Senate in Colorado's recent race, is the creator of the nationwide Bill of Rights Day rallies. Rick made headlines when he holstered a pistol at a rally on the anniversary of the Bill of Rights' ratification, an act of civil disobedience protesting Denver's unconstitutional gun ban for which he was arrested. [url]http://www.stanley2002.org/[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:56:28 AM EDT
[#4]
OK, so Rick Stanley talks the talk and walks the walk... what about those on this board?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:59:05 AM EDT
[#5]
Uhh...riding on the front of the bus or using a "whites only" water faucet wasn't classed as a felony. Blatant disobedience to firearms laws could ruin your life.
Maybe, after 5 or so years, when you're out of prison (and lost your right to vote, gain state licensures and veteran's benefits, etc.) you can attempt to bring a voice to your plight - the plight long forgotten. This type of civil disobedience cannot be so easily practiced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:59:42 AM EDT
[#6]
i do my best to obey the laws. i have no doubt that each day every one of us violates a firearms based law in one way or another. Can anyone actually recite all 20k+ laws on the books?
I have gotten to the point that i just don't care anymore. I do my best to be a good lawful person. That is all i can do. if the gov. wants to take you down, they will. Whether you are guilty or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:00:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: OK, so Rick Stanley talks the talk and walks the walk... what about those on this board? They vote Republican... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:04:05 PM EDT
[#8]
The laws mentioned are so ridiculous, that no law man would enforce them, it would be a waste of time both the officers and the courts. If you have ever seen a court calendar and the delay for a trial I think you would see the point, I mean someone, any one, give an example of a federal prosecution of "an individual" being prosecuted for a restricted cap magazine possession. I don't flaunt them, I just ignore them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:05:05 PM EDT
[#9]
[img]rbad.ar15.com/antiussa1.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:06:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: OK, so Rick Stanley talks the talk and walks the walk... what about those on this board? They vote Republican... Ouch... but maybe some truth in that. IF all gunowners saw things as we do, maybe all of us voting together might make a difference. However, if we all votes for XYZ party instead of Republicans... well with how close some margins have been in recent elections, maybe we ensure demonrats win and things get worse. I don't know. 82nd, you make a valid point... but those who are willing/seeking to die in a blaze of glory should consider a prison stint to be a minor sacrifice for the cause. Hell if enough otherwise law abiding citizens faced prosecution for violating these laws don't you think enough folks who aren't gun owners would say, "hey I know Joe and Bob and Mary and they are good folks, what's going on here?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:06:53 PM EDT
[#11]
soooo, you think the guy in NY who shot the robber with a "illegal" pistol is a idiot who got what he deserved.
BUT....if the same guy had done it with the intent of flaunting the law as an act of civil disobedience you would find him courageous and a hero ?? I agree with 82ndAbn on this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:08:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Hey RBAD, I'm trying to keep things civil here... could you remove that abomination from my thread... if not the world...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:09:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OK, so Rick Stanley talks the talk and walks the walk... what about those on this board? They vote Republican... Ouch... but maybe some truth in that. IF all gunowners saw things as we do, maybe all of us voting together might make a difference. However, if we all votes for XYZ party instead of Republicans... well with how close some margins have been in recent elections, maybe we ensure demonrats win and things get worse. I don't know. [red]82nd, you make a valid point... but those who are willing/seeking to die in a blaze of glory should consider a prison stint to be a minor sacrifice for the cause.[/red] Hell if enough otherwise law abiding citizens faced prosecution for violating these laws don't you think enough folks who aren't gun owners would say, "hey I know Joe and Bob and Mary and they are good folks, what's going on here?" I doubt it's the prison time that people would fear, it's the felony conviction and all the penalties that come with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:10:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: soooo, you think the guy in NY who shot the robber with a "illegal" pistol is a idiot who got what he deserved. BUT....if the same guy had done it with the intent of flaunting the law as an act of civil disobedience you would find him courageous and a hero ?? I agree with 82ndAbn on this one. Courageous and a hero, no? But I might not think him a hypocrite... Don't really know the man, can't speak to his beliefs. But I have read your posts spectre and I have to wonder why you don't take a post-ban receiver, put an illegal stock and upper on it and walk into the ATF and say, screw you, what ya gonna do about it?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:16:40 PM EDT
[#15]
And why don't you practice civil disobedience, HiramRanger?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:23:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Because while I disagree with the laws I also believe in the system. As stated in the post on the LI shooter, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter as to what is and is Constitutional. You can't stay behind the second amendment and ignore the provisions of Article 3. I can disagree with those learned justices, but if I believe in the power of the Constutition I have to place faith in the Supreme Court and the system the founding fathers put in place.
No law will ever have unanimous support. There will always be groups who feel it goes too far, not far enough... just far enough. There must be a final word that is binding, in this case the opinion of the majority of nine learned Consitutional scholars. The philosophers who our founding fathers relied upon believed that by living within a society and accepting its benefits and protections also binds you to obey its laws, even those you disagree with. By accepting the societal compact you agree to live by certain laws and accept certain authority over you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:23:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: soooo, you think the guy in NY who shot the robber with a "illegal" pistol is a idiot who got what he deserved. BUT....if the same guy had done it with the intent of flaunting the law as an act of civil disobedience you would find him courageous and a hero ?? I agree with 82ndAbn on this one. Courageous and a hero, no? But I might not think him a hypocrite... Don't really know the man, can't speak to his beliefs. But I have read your posts spectre and I have to wonder why you don't take a post-ban receiver, put an illegal stock and upper on it and walk into the ATF and say, screw you, what ya gonna do about it?" ummmm, just because I disagree with the stupid laws does'nt mean that I disobey them and I HIGHLY doubt that I have ever advocated someone willingly break the law. How about you cite some of these incriminating posts you are refering to. I am politically active and do whatever I can through LEGAL means to change the unconstitutional and idiotic gun laws....HOWEVER, last time I checked, it's not illigal to BITCH about the gubmint. (at least not yet) and I LOVE to bitch about the gubmint. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:52:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Because while I disagree with the laws I also believe in the system. There are plenty of disarmed Australians who also "believe in the system". Ditto for the citizens of dozens of other repressive countries. I'm sure some of the jewish citizens of 1930's Germany also "believed in the system" and thought that anyone who disobeyed it got what they deserved. It's a convenient mechanism for self-delusion, nothing more. [b]HiranRanger[/b], if you truly believe in the spirit of civil disobedience, then YOU should challenge these unjust laws. We'll follow your lead. Honest, we will! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:52:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The philosophers who our founding fathers relied upon believed that by living within a society and accepting its benefits and protections also binds you to obey its laws, even those you disagree with. By accepting the societal compact you agree to live by certain laws and accept certain authority over you. Erm, then WHY did they rebel against England? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:55:53 PM EDT
[#20]
[red]
..... it's not illigal to BITCH about the gubmint. (at least not yet) and I LOVE to bitch about the gubmint. Boy can I vouch for that, SPECTRE does love to bitch [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 1:07:50 PM EDT
[#21]
You first, Hiram. Go right ahead. I'll send you mail in prison.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 1:35:36 PM EDT
[#22]
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.
As for our founding fathers, they rebelled against a system that favored a powerful monarchy with the House of Lords essentially ratifying the will of the King, who was not elected. They rebelled because they were taxed but given no say in how they were governed. Clearly you can see the differences. The gun laws are passed by legislators we elect, signed into law by governors and presidents we elect, reviewed and interpreted by judges we either elect or who are nominated and confirmed by people whom we elect. Are you seeing the difference? How many of you have taken the time to read Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesque? How many of you have taken the time to understand the principles which drove our founding fathers? No gentlemen, I have never said any right is absolute. I despise most of the gun laws, some I actually DO agree with... I however understand how the process works and can look at it from a dispassioned point of view. I ask you do the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 1:39:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: 82nd, you make a valid point... but those who are willing/seeking to die in a blaze of glory should consider a prison stint to be a minor sacrifice for the cause. they dont spend a small stint in jail, they die in a blaze of glory. and then are called waco nutcases, bt the majority of US |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 1:39:50 PM EDT
[#24]
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
For me personally, I'd rather die defending my own rights then get fucked up the ass for 5 years in federal prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 1:51:09 PM EDT
[#25]
The whole concept of civil disobedience is to be arrested and tried on the charge and perhaps convicted. Remember Ghandi was considered a nut-job at first... before you know it tens of millions followed him and the British Empire no longer included India.
Seems to me that a lot of those folks who complain about the laws and claim they are unconstiutional follow them none the less while bitching a lot and voting for candidates that can't possibly win and then say they did something. When it comes down to it, they talk a good game but they aren't willing to do anything to risk the status quo - i.e. run afoul of the very laws which they claim not to be bound by. Their response when asked why not is to ask you why you haven't, even when you point out the fact repeatedly that you don't agree with the laws but none-the-less find them to meet constitutional muster while they are the ones claiming the laws have no constitutional authority. I don't know, just seems to me if you believe the laws don't apply to you you shouldn't be afraid to thumb your nose at them in person and face the consequences. True enough, whether you believe they are just or not you will stay face the penalty for violating them. But come on guys, where is the passion of your convictions? By the way, in case you were wondering what I'm up to, look up the words gadfly... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 1:58:54 PM EDT
[#26]
There is a difference between civil disobedience and stupidity...
The truth is we do have a cause we believe in, and we know it was protected in the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms was not granted us in that second amendment, it was simply enumerated... It is a god given right which no one and no government has the power to remove from the people. Our forefathers sought to protect us from the nutcase liberals who do not understand our nations security lies in those words. We firmly stand on the promise given us by our forefathers, and we believe this nation can still aspire to great things. Yes, many gun laws are overly restrictive. Civil disobedience will come when self preservation becomes criminal. I will never surrender my arms, I will never allow anyone to remove a god given right from me. I, however, will not walk into the ATF with an "illegally configured assault weapon" and tell them what I think. I would not further the cause by those actions. I will continue to use the political process to stand up for my rights until it becomes necessary for a revolution. God help us if we see that day... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:06:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: The gun laws are passed by legislators we elect, signed into law by governors and presidents we elect, reviewed and interpreted by judges we either elect or who are nominated and confirmed by people whom we elect. Are you seeing the difference? How many "WE" people here on ar15.com elected the people who authored and voted for gun control laws? I'd say close to 0. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:17:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Give me a break, just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law. How naive is that? Were they elected in an open election? Yes. Did they win? Yes. Are they thus empowered to legislate on behalf of all the people in their districts? Yes.
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. That's like saying you don't have to pay your taxes, or at least all of them, because you didn't vote for Bush and you don't support his foreign policy of going to war with Iraq. And lord knows you can't wage war without tax dollars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:22:33 PM EDT
[#29]
SCOTUS, Marbury v Madison Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Just something from a couple of centuries ago. Read into it what you will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:25:07 PM EDT
[#30]
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!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:26:53 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: SCOTUS, Marbury v Madison Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Just something from a couple of centuries ago. Read into it what you will. 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, the Miller decision 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:28:07 PM EDT
[#32]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:41:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: SCOTUS, Marbury v Madison Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Just something from a couple of centuries ago. Read into it what you will. 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, the Miller decision 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. Ahh, but you missed something, the law isnt just void from the point it is reviewed, it is void from the moment it was passed. That You do not have to obey an unConstitutional law because it is already VOID, even if the SCOTUS hasnt ruled on it. Reread Miller, it could VERY VERY, EXTREMELY easily be read to conclude that the NFA of '34 as it applies to Full-Auto weapons is 'void'. Do I think the 'Second' prohibits all gun laws? No, not in the least, I dont even think it prohibits registration (err that will get me tarred and feathered I bet) at least it doenst prohibit a non-infringing registration, think of the way we register voters. I dont even think it prohibits concealed carry permits, as long as they are shall issue and have reasonable requirements. Anyone who relies on Miller to decide gun law is foolish, it is a bad case written by arguably the WORST justice in the 20th Century over a case that the defendant had no representation, and wasnt even over a decision, it was a reinstatement a case that had been dismissed by a lower court (If Miller, or laywers, or anybody from his side, had been in the Supreme Court, we wouldnt be arguing this today). I do on the other hand think 'bans' or 'restrictive' registration is a violation of the Second Amendment, and its enumeration of a Right. I think the New York 'Sullivan' laws are a violation, I think Robert-Roos is a violation, I think the DC and Chicago bans are a violation. Hell I dont think it is a 'state' issue. The 14th Amendment killed that argument 130ish years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:03:06 PM EDT
[#34]
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. check yore facts again. jurry nullification is still and allways has been legal. the courts have tried valiently to remove this right, but have only secceded in makeing "fully informed juries" a thing of the past. judges no longer are required to inform of this right, and defence lawyers are "probably prohibited" from bringing the issue up. but jurry nullification is not illegal...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:04:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Give me a break, just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law. OK, HR, so what's the point of this thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:07:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Since I live in probably the worst area when firearm laws are concerned, it might be better to fly under the radar. However, if there were an organization with extremely DEEP pockets that was willing to back my legal defense I would consider fighting the constitutionality of NYC's gun laws with my criminal record on the line.
I am outnumbered and out-spent in this city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:10:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Anyway, the spirit of civil disobedience as evinced by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. was one where they broke the law hoping to be arrested and punished, thereby calling public attention to laws they found to be unlawful. Why is it then that those of you who think these gun control laws to be so evil and such an infringement do not go out and violate them publicly and invite prosecution and incarceration to draw attention to our cause? Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. did not have to face the JBTs at the ATF. It's one thing to risk riding in the back of the bus. It's quite another to be booted into Club Fed to serve 10 to 20 with Bubba. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:18:57 PM EDT
[#38]
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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:25:59 PM EDT
[#39]
Do anybody really expect a reply that advocates anyone to completely disobey gun laws here? It is known that this site is monitored by an alphabet soup of JBTs. What sort of idiot would post information about their premeditated violation of multiple federal felonies? The folk who do practice civil disobedience are not going to advertise it until they can get the type of support that rosa parks or ml king had. Lots and lots of dollars and the best lawyers that can be dredge from the sewers. Stanley did it because he felt very strongly about it and had the money to back himself up.
I feel very strongly but as a working class stiff I would be tossed in the big house for a good ten years at least. I do believe that "unlawful laws" are null and void by definition and as such no one is obligated to abide by. Of course when did obeying the law have anything to do with staying out of jail? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:32:48 PM EDT
[#40]
The consequences for violating gun control laws today are more severe than when Rosa Parks violated a city ordinance, and refused to give up her bus seat to a white man.
The usual violation of a gun control law is a felony conviction. This means that: (a.) you can't vote (not a great loss considering our choice of viable political party candidates), (b.) never being able to obtain or losing your job as a: policeman, teacher, lawyer, etc., (c.) never being able to legally own a firearm (a death knell to us "gunny's"), (d.) trouble getting a passport and visa. The sad thing is that a felony conviction has no "statue of limitations" afterwhich your conviction no longer limits. Instead it is a punishment that will last the rest of your life unless you happen to be one of the lucky and affluent few who manage to obtain a presidential pardon. I think that this is a serious flaw in our judicial system. It simply does not allow for redemption. Everyone screws up, and everyone changes as they get older. A lot of us are just lucky we never got caught. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:33:12 PM EDT
[#41]
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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:42:17 PM EDT
[#42]
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 ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:43:34 PM EDT
[#43]
You ask why we don't announce our willful disregard of these abominations and get arrested hoping to make change.
Simple, at least for me it's simple. For me, I don't obey a single gun-law. I don't do it for civil disobedience purposes. I do it because in the very near future I will be called upon to make good on my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The inalienable rights given us by God are being violated with these anti-life, anti-freedom abominations (read: gun laws) and my disobedience of them means that I will have all the tools necessary when the time comes to assist in bringing freedom back to this once fine nation. For me, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with civil disobedience. If I were to announce my willful disobedience, and get arrested, well, then I've taken myself out of the fight, and that is not an option. I should not have to state this again, but this has nothing to do with bayonets and flash hiders, and in fact has everything to do with freedom or death. You can make your choice, I have already made mine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:48:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Ahh, but you missed something, the law isnt just void from the point it is reviewed, it is void from the moment it was passed. That You do not have to obey an unConstitutional law because it is already VOID, even if the SCOTUS hasnt ruled on it. I'm sorry, could you provide that section of the ruling? My understanding of the law, as learned in several semesters of ConLaw is that a law is binding and considered Constiutuional until such time as it is ruled otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction. If a law is subsequently determined to be unconstiutional it is from its day of passage, thus any convictions for violation are void. I think, and I may be wrong, is you are thinking of the principle that should it be ruled unconstitutional that previous convictions could stand but further prosecution would be prohibited. This is false, all previous convictions would be voided and no further convictions allowed. To adopt the interpretation you are advocating would invite anarchy. The system trusts that laws repugnant to the Constitution will through Constitutional paramters be righted. You are not free to disregard them until such time as the courts say they are just, it is the other way around, you are bound to obey them until such time as the courts say said law is a violation of your rights, thereby relieving you of that obligation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:50:24 PM EDT
[#45]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 3:58:24 PM EDT
[#46]
How about this You get into an argument and your spouse calls the police and a restraining order is placed on me? I just got Unarmed with one pieace of paper! no violence no nothing!
I stand before a judge and he say's stand! if I have to ever really defend myself I am fucked. never happend to me but I was giving an example. All my weapons went through a NCIS check and never had went afoul with the law yet! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:00:57 PM EDT
[#47]
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. [red]I don't believe that requiring a pistol permit is in and of itself unconstitutional.[/red] 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:04:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: How about this You get into an argument and your spouse calls the police and a restraining order is placed on me? I just got Unarmed with one pieace of paper! no violence no nothing! I stand before a judge and he say's stand! if I have to ever really defend myself I am fucked. never happend to me but I was giving an example. All my weapons went through a NCIS check and never had went afoul with the law yet! Hmmmmmm, good question. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:07:49 PM EDT
[#49]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:16:51 PM EDT
[#50]
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 |
|
|
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.
