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.