Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/19/2004 10:55:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 11:04:07 AM EST by Zachnefein]
Ok, I'm pretty new here, and pretty new to the "Fight for Our Rights" thing.
I have been obsessed for several weeks now on studying 2nd Amendment decisions, laws, Framers intent, and other "Important Peoples" opinion. etc....

My question:
Is there any merit in Calling for the Resignation, and/or Prosecution of those Senators and Representatives who freely and knowingly conspire to infringe our Civil Rights?

There is entirely too much info out there on the "Intent" of the 2nd ammendment, that I don't see how any reasonably inteligent person could begin to believe that the "2nd" isn't an individual right, and that can in any way be regulated, suspended, or even questioned to the slightest degree.

The intent above all others is to make sure that our Military can in no way outgun our civilian population.
Laws that state that certain weapons may only be possesed by Military and Law Enforcemnt tells me that I should have very much to fear from Military and Law Enforcement, and the Government which controls them.

Representatives, Senators, and the President, all swear an oath to:
"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"

How can they conspire to strip away Civil Rights and still Maintain their oath?

From Wikipedia:

"perjury requires one to have the mens rea and actus reus necessary to prove the elements of a crime."


I submit that these representatives have commited perjury by not defeinding the Constitution.


"
Mens rea is a criminal law concept which focuses on the mental state of the accused and requires proof of a positive state of mind such as intent, recklessness, or willful blindness."



I submit that Intent to "Infringe our rights" is definitely there. and Willfull blindness is proven by the wealth of information on intent (of the Framers).


"Actus reus is the action (or inaction, in the case of criminal negligence and similar crimes which are sometimes called acts of omission) which, in combination with the mens rea ("guilty mind"), produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. "


They are definitly actively seeking to Infring our Rights.

--------------------
Another odd thought that I have been wrestling with.
How can any LEO legaly disarm any citizen?

I know it goes against rational thought. The Police are supposed to be here to help us.
But shouldn't disarming any one be thought of, literaly, as a Civil Rights Violation? - on several levels... (2nd, 4th -Unlawfull seizures, and 5th - deprived of property, without due process of law)

I realise that it could be almost catastrophic to realize this in Law, but that's kinda how I'm seeing it Literaly.
--------------------

Hoping for some discussion. My wife is getting tired of me ranting ;)

Edited to addL Most of the topics in here seem to be dealing with how to conform to the laws.
I want to know how we can get rid of them... ALL of them.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:34:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 5:44:38 AM EST by otto_esq]
Mens Rea and Actus Reus are latin terms simply meaning that someone must knowingly and willfully commit an act that is prohibited by statute to be guilty of the crime of violating that statute, if the statute requires willfulness and knowledge for culpability. Some statutes don't, although the Supreme Court pretty much requires any criminal statute of having an implied knowledge and willfulness requirement.

Purjury in the common sense is willfully stating (an act) under oath a fact personally thought to be untrue. A person can be wrong on the witness stand and not be a purgeror, for example, as well as a person can testify to objectively correct facts, but the intent and belief to mislead the court is purgery.

A congressman to be guilty of purgery for violating the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is a novel concept to me, but I'd imagine the elements required for conviction would be closer to common law treason, as oppossed to working against the "intended" purpose of the second amendment.

After all, different people, as do different courts, have different interpretations of laws, including the second amendment. The plain reading of a law is even debatable, without having to get into the intent behind it. The debate on the plain reading and the intent of Congress makes up a bulk of our legal system. See the definition of "facial attack" for example.
As for courts disagreeing on second amendment rights, see
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052

IV. CONCLUSION [to the original appellate case, wich is now "the law" in the 9th Cir]
Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED.


312 F.3d 1052 at 1092-93.
The petition for re hearing en banc was denied, as was the petition for certiori to the US Supreme Court.

Finally, criminal statutes require a very high burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt") that, coupled with the vague nature of the oath and the reasonable interpretability of the 2nd Am., a conviction for merely disagreeing with an interpretation of the law not ruled upon by the Supreme Court is unlikely. After all, Congress was created under the same Constitution to make the laws, which would naturally include attempting to change the ones we have. See for example the right to vote for non-male, non-white US citizens, income taxes, and prohibition against slavery.

I don't agree with many of the things out of congress, either by way of legislation or press releases, but the first is their elected job, and the second is based on the first amendment.

If I don't like how they are doing their job, the Constitution guarantees that I can work to vote them out. If I don't like their public statements, outside of treason, the first amendment protects their right to an opinion as much as mine -- to attempt otherwise would be as great of a constitutional attack as attempting restrictions of the second amendment rights.

Cheers, Otto

ETA Without certian societal laws and effective government, we would be, as Thomas Hobbes would describe, in a "state of nature" which sounds great until you realize that in such a world, life is "nasty, brutish, and short." God help us if government degrades to the point of ceasing to be effective. I understand that some claim it already has. I do not share that view. It is horribly inefficient, but in many ways expediency is the mark of a dictatorship.

I agree with certain laws, as do most on this board, I'd assume. I don't want lunatics, convicted violent felons and children to have free access to firearms, nor would I trust anyone with nuclear weapons. Your interpretation may differ, and you have that right.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:22:40 PM EST
Thanks for the reply.

I see your point on following the intent.. Kinda like someone telling us the intent of the AWB was to ban the rifles even though it isn't spelled out in the law.
It has been my thought, so far, that the "Intent" was the strictist possible interpretation of the Constitution. Somthing I hadn't considered, is the different ways of interpreting.
from this article.
1. intent
2. Plain Language
3. Constitutional theory
4. Arguments from precedent
5. Arguments from shared values of the community


Some of the reading that I've done indicates that the 2nd was shortened to it's current form to make it more understandable.. guess it didn't quite work, or I have mis-read.

For the past week, I have been under the impression that the Silveira v. Lockyer decision was somehow reversed or overturned. I'm not sure exactly where I read it (too much info in too little time, I guess), but I knew it was the "standing" decision untill I read something recently..... maybe I read it wrong/ too hopeful.



I agree with certain laws, as do most on this board, I'd assume. I don't want lunatics, convicted violent felons and children to have free access to firearms, nor would I trust anyone with nuclear weapons. Your interpretation may differ, and you have that right.


I have mixed feelings on this; while I totaly agree with background checks, to prevent violent criminals easy access, and I certainly wouldn't even consider Nuclear/chemical type weapons in the hands of civilians, I am forming a firm belief that we citizens have/should have the right to all arms in use by LEO and Military (small and heavy).
It will be them that we have to face to if it ever comes to it (Heaven forbid).

I guess I should keep reading and learn a bit more before I try to discuss the issues ;)

I'm finding a wealth of good quotes ---

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788
Top Top