I am filing a suit against the government.

From what I can tell you have to write your complaint and submit it to your State's District Court in the form of some kind of legal document.  And then you goto court,  make an argument, get a ruling,  and if unfavorable can appeal it to the appeals court.

Can someone explain to me the whole process a little more clearer?

My suit will be based around the fact that the Senate cannot make laws and has violated the United States Constitution and my constitutional rights.  Any informative answers will be appreciated,  Thank You.

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. -- Edmund Burke"

I am not sure if it is wise or unwise to do what you are thinking. But i do know this: Take your time and study the law and all the procedures. Get to the point in your knowledge where you have thought of every angle and argument against your arguement.....to the point where not one of your sentences will start with the words "I think". And if you make it to court, never use the words "I think".

Rhode Island is not supposed to enforce domestic violence laws since it violates a Constitional right.  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;".  I intend to bring a suit against Rhode Island as well.

Thank you again for any informative help.

Quoted: Rhode Island technically is not even supposed to enforce domestic violence laws since it violates a Constitional right.  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;".  I intend to bring a suit against Rhode Island as well. Can someone IM me any information you may have that will help me.  Thank you.

Are you saying if you beat/assault your wife or kids, you don't think the state you live in has something to say about that?

Why is it when someone breaks the law, they never think about the consequences, even at the age of 18 and instead of just taking responsibility for what they did back then instead of trying to find a loophole.

You claim you got your domestic disturbance/violence charges from "yelling at your father". While that may be true, I've never once gotten arrested for just yelling at someone. I would like to hear the LEO's side of what happened.

New year = new screen name, but same old RI nolo contender/ DV conviction issue.

First: The court reporters are filled with cases where people lose "rights" based on unexpected consequences of their actions.  This is very serious to you, but so is the public policy rationale of restriction of certain rights for persons convicted of certain crimes, domestic violence being one of them.

To answer your question:  
Even if you are appearing as your own counsel (pro se), your suit against the federal government would be thrown out as "not ripe" in that you have not yet "exhausted all possible remedies".  
"Ripeness" and "exhaustion of remedies" are terms you should look up in a legal dictionary for they are terms of art.

You have both a state claim and federal issue.

Federal: you have to petition the ATF for restoration of the right to possess firearms...

FYI:

"As mentioned previously, persons who have lost the right to possess firearms—for example, because of a criminal conviction—can petition ATF for relief from firearms disabilities imposed by federal laws. However, since October 1992 Congress has prohibited ATF from using any appropriated funds to process such petitions, essentially leaving the states primarily responsible for restoring firearms rights."

GOA 2002 report, footnote 2.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02720.pdf

I am unaware of any changes by Congress since 2002 in this area, so you may be SOL re: the ATF.

That leaves Rhode Island.

State: You should be seeking answers about how to petition the state's attorney general or whoever regarding your gun possession issue.  It may not be a "right" under the state constitution, although I have no idea.

Focus your research to Rhode Island and there may be non-profit or legal aid organizations that can provide resources for petitioning in-state.
Only after you've ran the course of the state courts would you be able to appeal to federal court, if the case has not been removed to federal court for some important federal question already.

FYI: Federal courts routinely uphold states' rulings on state criminal law issues that have affect on federal rights -- the "police power" is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.  Therefore, suing the federal government regarding RI's denial of restoration of rights would also get you nowhere.

If you are not old and gray by this time, you might have a chance of getting your "right" under the 2nd Amendment to the FEDERAL constitution restored under state law.

I'd wish you "good luck" but with the reservation that I happen to agree with the state and federal policy concerning convictions for domestic violence.

Cheers, Otto


ETA:
Based on the US Supreme Court case of DICKERSON v. NEW BANNER INSTITUTE, INC., 460 U.S. 103 (1983)  
you have to win in BOTH STATE and FEDERAL court to have your conviction not prevent you from owning firearms. Dickerson held that a limited granting of states rights did not automatically remove the prohibitions under 18 USC 922(g) from owning firearms, which would most likely include 18 USC 922(g)(9) for "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under federal law.

So unless RI caves and completely restores your firearms ownership ability, you'd still be SOL under federal law.

Quoted: Quoted: Rhode Island technically is not even supposed to enforce domestic violence laws since it violates a Constitional right.  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;".  I intend to bring a suit against Rhode Island as well. Can someone IM me any information you may have that will help me.  Thank you. Are you saying if you beat/assault your wife or kids, you don't think the state you live in has something to say about that?hinking.gif Why is it when someone breaks the law, they never think about the consequences, even at the age of 18 and instead of just taking responsibility for what they did back then instead of trying to find a loophole. You claim you got your domestic disturbance/violence charges from "yelling at your father". While that may be true, I've never once gotten arrested for just yelling at someone. I would like to hear the LEO's side of what happened.

No,  the federal government does not the constitutional power to create or enforce any laws (They have very limited capability to make laws).  IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY DO,  OR THEY HAVE CREATED THE PRECEDANT FOR THEM TO DO SO.  They cant under the Constitution.

Quoted: hr

Luagh all you want but I would like for you to show me where in the Constitution it allows the Federal government to make laws prohibiting crime within the United States.  They cant,  making laws against crime other then the high seas is a power reserved to the States.  Those rights are reserved to the State's because they are not granted to the federal government in the Constituion.

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Quoted: I also do not recognize the right of the federal government to make laws at all,  as it is not prescribed to them in the Constitution.  The power of law not relating to offenses commited against the law of nations or piracies or felonies on the high seas are reserved to the States.

That's actually a good argument, but is a moot point now.  You are about 140 years too late for it.  The 14th amendment ruined it for ya.

BTW, you come across as a nut.  I might be wrong, but that's the first impression I get from you.  Please don't take me to court for slander, along with the State of Arizona for allowing me to say this to you.

Quoted: BTW, you come across as a nut.  I might be wrong, but that's the first impression I get from you.  Please don't take me to court for slander, along with the State of Arizona for allowing me to say this to you.

Across state lines too

Quoted: First: The court reporters are filled with cases where people lose "rights" based on unexpected consequences of their actions.  This is very serious to you, but so is the public policy rationale of restriction of certain rights for persons convicted of certain crimes, domestic violence being one of them. To answer your question:   Even if you are appearing as your own counsel (pro se), your suit against the federal government would be thrown out as "not ripe" in that you have not yet "exhausted all possible remedies".   "Ripeness" and "exhaustion of remedies" are terms you should look up in a legal dictionary for they are terms of art.

Actually it is my Constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  The devil can set procedures that makes it nearly impossible citing "ripeness" and "not exhausting all options",  but that doesnt mean the devil has any honor.

You have both a state claim and federal issue. Federal: you have to petition the ATF for restoration of the right to possess firearms... FYI: "As mentioned previously, persons who have lost the right to possess firearms—for example, because of a criminal conviction—can petition ATF for relief from firearms disabilities imposed by federal laws. However, since October 1992 Congress has prohibited ATF from using any appropriated funds to process such petitions, essentially leaving the states primarily responsible for restoring firearms rights." GOA 2002 report, footnote 2. www.gao.gov/new.items/d02720.pdf I am unaware of any changes by Congress since 2002 in this area, so you may be SOL re: the ATF.

First the ATF is not part of the judicial branch.  They do not hear my suit against the US government,  When I file suit against the United States,  I am not filing a suit against the ATF,  I am filing a suit against the United States government.  It is the government that is making illegal laws,  not the ATF.  I am not petitioning the ATF to restore my 2nd Amendment rights,  I am petititon the government to abolish all laws it has made illegally,  and to restore our constitutional rights.

I am attacking the basis on which they made the law that had suspended my right in the first place.

Second the Constitution says "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.".

That leaves Rhode Island. State: You should be seeking answers about how to petition the state's attorney general or whoever regarding your gun possession issue.  It may not be a "right" under the state constitution, although I have no idea. Focus your research to Rhode Island and there may be non-profit or legal aid organizations that can provide resources for petitioning in-state. Only after you've ran the course of the state courts would you be able to appeal to federal court, if the case has not been removed to federal court for some important federal question already. FYI: Federal courts routinely uphold states' rulings on state criminal law issues that have affect on federal rights -- the "police power" is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.  Therefore, suing the federal government regarding RI's denial of restoration of rights would also get you nowhere. If you are not old and gray by this time, you might have a chance of getting your "right" under the 2nd Amendment to the FEDERAL constitution restored under state law. I'd wish you "good luck" but with the reservation that I happen to agree with the state and federal policy concerning convictions for domestic violence. Cheers, Otto ETA: Based on the US Supreme Court case of DICKERSON v. NEW BANNER INSTITUTE, INC., 460 U.S. 103 (1983)   you have to win in BOTH STATE and FEDERAL court to have your conviction not prevent you from owning firearms. Dickerson held that a limited granting of states rights did not automatically remove the prohibitions under 18 USC 922(g) from owning firearms, which would most likely include 18 USC 922(g)(9) for "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under federal law. So unless RI caves and completely restores your firearms ownership ability, you'd still be SOL under federal law.

You must be a lawyer for the federal government.  Or maybe a judge.  Your blind ignorance to the Constitution and the judicial system is pretty insulting.

What you say might be truth as far as where I would get with my suit,  but that doesnt give it any integrity.  

You said you agree with it.   You have no honor.

The government has overstepped its powers majorly and people are totally complacent.  This is NOT how the government is structured and has become a joke.  It was structured to limit the power of the Federal government and preserve certain powers to the States.  It was structured to guarantee certain rights.  The federal government has become the chief law maker illegally,  has infringed on my constitutionally granted rights,  and created their own interpretation of the Constitution and their constitutionally granted powers.  They have also created one of the largest standing armies in the world and disarmed the populace.  THE GREATEST THREAT TO LIBERTY ACCORDING TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

You have not stated your support to my argument and have instead attacked my character,  ethics, and fail to recognize the fault of the government.  You will not be entertained to any more posts from me,  you are not worth the time.

Quoted: Quoted: I also do not recognize the right of the federal government to make laws at all,  as it is not prescribed to them in the Constitution.  The power of law not relating to offenses commited against the law of nations or piracies or felonies on the high seas are reserved to the States.   That's actually a good argument, but is a moot point now.  You are about 140 years too late for it.  The 14th amendment ruined it for ya.

How would the 14th amendment make this a moot point?

Quoted: BTW, you come across as a nut.  I might be wrong, but that's the first impression I get from you.  Please don't take me to court for slander, along with the State of Arizona for allowing me to say this to you.

I beleive in the integrity of the Constitution.  Is that nutty?  havent
Here is a picture and the myspace profile of "the nut".

Have you considered contacting the Governor of your state and request to have your rights restored?

A well thought out and effective letter which outlines the story, and that you are not the same person today that you were when you were 18 might accomplish your goals (not to mention being much less expensive).

Quoted: Have you considered contacting the Governor of your state and request to have your rights restored? A well thought out and effective letter which outlines the story, and that you are not the same person today that you were when you were 18 might accomplish your goals (not to mention being much less expensive).

I thought about it,  however they will not be able to remedy my problem.  Unless we succeed from the Union,  there is no power the governor will have to remedy my problem.  Although I do plan on trying.

Restoring my 2nd Amendment right cannot be accomplished by the Attorney General,  or my State governor.  Congress has illegally created laws that infringes on the rights of all citizens to posses arms.  Neither the Attorney General or my State governor has any power to overturn law.  Only the Supreme Court can ultimatly decide that.

Quoted: No,  the federal government does not the constitutional power to create or enforce any laws not effecting interstate commerce.  IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY DO,  OR THEY HAVE CREATED THE PRECEDANT FOR THEM TO DO SO.  They cant.

WOW. Pretty sure I said "State you live in...", not Federal Government.

Quoted: Are you saying if you beat/assault your wife or kids, you don't think the state you live in has something to say about that?

Yup... I did. Read things properly before you spout off about them. It will make you sound like you know what you are talking about and prepared for a discussion about them. Your comments are moot as my point was about your State goverment. You originally wrote:

Quoted: Rhode Island technically is not even supposed to enforce domestic violence laws since it violates a Constitional right. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;". I intend to bring a suit against Rhode Island as well.

But then you edited that part out for some reason.

I had not edited any posts at the time you had made yours.

You have a right to file these suits. You say you want to attack this pro se (without representation). Good luck with that. You should go to Law school and pass the bar, then have many years of practicing law under your belt before you attempt this. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court does not have to listen to your case. With such a case, i believe you would probably file it in Federal District Court, and then you would have to make your way up the legal system to the Supreme Court where you would send a writ of certiori to the supreme court, and they would then decide if the WANT to hear your case. The Supreme Court does not listen to every case that is brought before them. There are only a few instances in which the Supreme Court MUST hear the case. At the moment i can not remember what those times are, but a lawsuit is not one of them.

Again, you need to re-read, comprehend and then comment.

You stated that the State of Rhode Island has not right to enforce a law, since violates a constitutional right.

I then commented "Are you saying if you beat/assault your wife or kids, you don't think the state you live in has something to say about that?"

To that, your response was "No, the federal government does not the constitutional power to create or enforce any laws not effecting interstate commerce. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY DO, OR THEY HAVE CREATED THE PRECEDANT FOR THEM TO DO SO. They cant."

You said essentially you are suing the State because they should have not enforced a law about domestic violence. I commented that why in the world would a state not care if you slap around your spouse or child, or in your case a "shouting match" with your father. You then spout off about the government not have the right to make a law that does not pertain to interstate commerce.

Was not yelling at my own quote, was quoting that I commented about the State having interest in laws about domestic violence and you going for another comment about the government. I quoted myself to make it clear that I was discussing the state.

You are clearing not comprehending my posts.

Sorry about saying you edited, I admit that was wrong. I thought your Rhode Island rant was in your first post, it was in your second.

Don't get me wrong, I support your right to sue because you think your rights have been violated. What I have the problem with is that the verbal arguement was obviously large enough to get the police involved and be arrested for, and now you want to get back rights taken away from because of a crime you admit you committed!

I would try your Governor first. A lot less time, money and it doesn't paint a very large bullseye on your forehead for future actions.

Ya know, I could have done a lot of bad things when I was 18. I had a lot of friends in the drug crowd. Could have had a lot more fun. But I had enough forethought to realize my actions of those days may affect my future.

ETA that I hit submit before ready.

Gonna need to get admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court before you argue your case there.

That's probably not gonna happen. Since you were strapped for cash, and since a qualified lawyer probably won't touch your case with a 39 1/2 foot pole, and since you're probably a nut as alluded to, and since you yell at your daddy and since you know so much about so much - I'd say go on Oprah, Montel, Dr. Phil, etc. and tell the world your story. After an expose like that, why, W. himself will pardon your misdeeds and order RI to buy you a glock.

Good luck there Implement, and welcome to the board.

Quoted: Good luck there Implement, and welcome to the board.

Another word for Implement is Tool.

Quoted: New year = new screen name, but same old RI nolo contender/ DV conviction issue.

Doesn't sound like "welcomes" are necessary. Sounds like we may have a troll or a regularly banned person just coming back with a new screen name.

I could be wrong. If you ask my wife she will probably tell you its happened once or twice before.

Quoted: After an expose like that, why, W. himself will pardon your misdeeds and order RI to buy you a glock. Good luck there Implement, and welcome to the board.

It is the federal governments responsibility to arm the militia,  not the States.  That is what I pay taxes for.  

Edited.

Not worth it anymore... this guy has gone off the deep end.

Quoted: Again, you need to re-read, comprehend and then comment. You stated that the State of Rhode Island has not right to enforce a law, since violates a constitutional right. I then commented "Are you saying if you beat/assault your wife or kids, you don't think the state you live in has something to say about that?"

I said Rhode Island can not make or enforce any law that violates my Constitutional rights.

The problem is that the Federal government has made laws concerning domestic violence.  The power to make laws concerning domestic violence is reserved to the States,  not to the federal government.  Since the federal law states that domestic violence offenders no longer retain their 2nd amendment right,  Rhode Island can not legally enforce their own domestic violence laws because it would be enforcing the federal law that violated my constitutional rights.

My question to you is this:  Do you want mass murderers to be able to possess firearms?  I don't.  I don't think ex-con's should eithor (at least violent offenders).  In some cases, I agree with you, but the way you are seeking to get resolution to this seems like using a bazooka to kill a fly.  Neithor of which are good for much of anything.

Not this guy again...how many times have you been banned?

Quoted: My question to you is this:  Do you want mass murderers to be able to possess firearms?  I don't.  I don't think ex-con's should eithor (at least violent offenders).  In some cases, I agree with you, but the way you are seeking to get resolution to this seems like using a bazooka to kill a fly.  Neithor of which are good for much of anything.

No,  mass murderers should spend the rest of their lives in jail.

I beleive ex-cons are exactly that,  ex-cons.  We set out their punishment,  they serve their punishment,  and their debt is paid to society.  The way to keep arms out of ex-con's hands,  is to give convicts more time in jail,  or more jail/probation.

Swatting the fly with a fly swatter is not guaranteed to hit the fly and kill it once and for all.  Nuking the flies from orbit will guarantee that their will be no more flies.

You recommend I do nothing and prolong the issue?

The government has overstepped its powers.  The Senate thinks it is their duty to make the laws that govern the people in this nation,  that is not the truth.  They determine the tax I pay, not the laws I follow.  They have very limited capability to make laws,  usually in regards to international law.

This case is bigger then just me losing my 2nd Amendment right.  It is the lack of integrity and corruption of the government.

If Congress had amended the constitution which gave them the power to make all of these laws,  then I would not be making an argument.  They have not amended the constitution,   it is clear that they are corrupt and irresponsible in their duty.

As an American you should feel the same way.

This is a legal forum,  my case is 2nd amendment related,  and I thought I could get some informative answers here.  I guess not.

Good bye.

Quoted: Quoted: First: The court reporters are filled with cases where people lose "rights" based on unexpected consequences of their actions.  This is very serious to you, but so is the public policy rationale of restriction of certain rights for persons convicted of certain crimes, domestic violence being one of them. To answer your question:   You must be a lawyer for the federal government.  Or maybe a judge.  Your blind ignorance to the Constitution and the judicial system is pretty insulting. What you say might be truth as far as where I would get with my suit,  but that doesnt give it any integrity.   You said you agree with it.   You have no honor. The government has overstepped its powers majorly and people are totally complacent.  This is NOT how the government is structured and has become a joke.  It was structured to limit the power of the Federal government and preserve certain powers to the States.  It was structured to guarantee certain rights.  The federal government has become the chief law maker illegally,  has infringed on my constitutionally granted rights,  and created their own interpretation of the Constitution and their constitutionally granted powers.  They have also created one of the largest standing armies in the world and disarmed the populace.  THE GREATEST THREAT TO LIBERTY ACCORDING TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS. You have not stated your support to my argument and have instead attacked my character,  ethics, and fail to recognize the fault of the government.  You will not be entertained to any more posts from me,  you are not worth the time.

On the contrary, I have tried to direct your efforts to a better place for attack, pointed out legal impediments that you'll have to overcome to be successful (while providing my opinion as to the likelyhood of success ... BTW, don't tell my clients of my blind ignorance of the US legal system or I'll be out of a job), stated that there are public policy reasons for the very laws that create the restictions you are experiencing, and I don't see that this issue is necessarily a fault of the government, so... its probably better that you DO ignore me.

You've ranted here at least twice before, in this very forum, on various stages of this exact issue, and I see that you've not learned any civility along the way. No need to attack your character, for you provide the best evidence of it all by yourself.

And for the record: Yes, I agree EMPHATICALLY with the principle that those CONVICTED (nolo contender, or otherwise) of domestic violence, by their demonstrated lack of control in dealing with those even in ones own family, should have certain RESTRICTIONS, if nothing more than for the safety of those around them. If that makes me appear less honorable to you, so be it.
The government has the duty to protect ALL of its citizens, and it must balance that duty against the "rights" of those individual citizens. While there may be cases where a law is overbroad, in that it restricts rights in ways that seem "unfair", we have means to overturn them. Go fo it.
Along the way, you may want to crack a dictionary regarding "integrity" as well.



ETA: Why did I even bother? I should have ended with: "New year = new screen name, but same old RI nolo contender/ DV conviction issue."

It is interesting that that is the ONLY part of my post you did NOT address.

Troll.  Definitely a troll.

Dude, you don't have a cause of action, the U.S. hasn't waived sovereign immunity and you cpuldn't establish standing if you could get past the first two.

How are things at DU these days?

Quoted: ETA: Why did I even bother? I should have ended with: "New year = new screen name, but same old RI nolo contender/ DV conviction issue." It is interesting that that is the ONLY part of my post you did NOT address.

Otto, this is one of the reasons I took a break from Staff and this site.  There are some real ingorant nutcases here that fuck it up for the rest of us - I just got sick of having to deal with morons like this guy.

get

a

lawyer



oh, stop assaulting people when you get mad at them, that will help too.

Quoted: When I file suit against the United States,  I am not filing a suit against the ATF,  I am filing a suit against the United States government.

So you're suing me? The people are the government, remember? Did you mean you were going to sue Congress? They are the ones who legislate.

Quoted: Quoted: ETA: Why did I even bother? I should have ended with: "New year = new screen name, but same old RI nolo contender/ DV conviction issue." It is interesting that that is the ONLY part of my post you did NOT address. Otto, this is one of the reasons I took a break from Staff and this site.  There are some real ingorant nutcases here that fuck it up for the rest of us - I just got sick of having to deal with morons like this guy.

And he does such a good job of proving your characterization:

From a locked, untitled thread (ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=428839):

I just read the entire Federal US Code.

Oh, really? All 50 titles? Before breakfast? I hope it wasn't the annotated set, for that occupies about 34 linear FEET of shelf-space (with pocket parts)

From General Discussion •  Do we have an innaffective intelligence agency?

I do support the war. I read the Koran. I think it is a disgusting religion. I support the war on the sole fact they are islamic. I support the war because Iraq had invaded Kuwait. I support the war because their country was a cesspit of stink. I dont support the war on the propaganda that they had stockpiled of WMD's. I go with what I know, the facts. I wasnt shown any proof that we had any intelligence that Iraq had WMD's. And to this day, I still havent.

And I don't  think the "facts" back him up on this point:

In pakistan we attack a sovereign country and kill 18 civilians on "unverified" intelligence hoping to kill Al Quaida leaders. There was no Al Quiada there.

Thanks for the support, Steve.

Cheers, Otto

I just read the entire Federal US Code.

Now THAT is some funny shit!  

In before thread lock-down.

Sorry, if you have a DV conviction I dont want you owning a firearm. You are more likely to use it than a sane person.

I missed the earler editions.  Is he claiming he has the privilege of committing domestic violence or immunity from prosecution? or that he has a constitutional right to perform domestic violence?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I also do not recognize the right of the federal government to make laws at all,  as it is not prescribed to them in the Constitution.  The power of law not relating to offenses commited against the law of nations or piracies or felonies on the high seas are reserved to the States.   That's actually a good argument, but is a moot point now.  You are about 140 years too late for it.  The 14th amendment ruined it for ya. How would the 14th amendment make this a moot point?

Guardian, you could have refered him to the Constituion, Article 1, Section 8, which, after an extensive list of powers of the Congress, states Congress shall have the power "[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Quoted: The government has overstepped its powers.  The Senate thinks it is their duty to make the laws that govern the people in this nation,  that is not the truth.  They determine the tax I pay, not the laws I follow.  They have very limited capability to make laws,  usually in regards to international law.

In that the Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal Government (joining the executive and judicial branches), the fact that our hero of this story does "not recognize the right of the federal government to make laws at all" is a bit off-base.
Having read the entire US Code, which is the manefestation of the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1-8, (and very little of it, relatively, to do with international law) you'd think our hero would realize that by now.

Quoted: If Congress had amended the constitution which gave them the power to make all of these laws,  then I would not be making an argument.

ImplementofWar, a couple of questions for you:
1. Given the plain reading of the original Constitution, particularly Article 1-8, above, are we still lax in your eyes by not agreeing with your rationale to overturn "illegal" laws?
2. Given your statements, above, particularly "If Congress had ... the power to make all of these laws,  then I would not be making an argument", how does that fit with your definitions of "integrety" and "honor" and your dogged pursuit of a way around a personal prohibition from owning firearms based on a crime you did not contest in court?


FYI:

PaDanby, our hero has been here in this legal forum under at least 2 prior screen names that IIRC have been banned for various reasons in posts in other forums.(search "ImplementofWar" for a hoot, one even ID's our hero as a 23 year old with a link to his pic)
The issue as I recall is that he plead nolo contender to a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence against his father when he was 18.
He was asking if 1. nolo contender is a "conviction"; it is, in that it is the same as pleading guilty under the law.
2. if that charge fits the FEDERAL definition of prohibited persons in 18 USC 922 et seq; debatably no, for the federal law defines DV as against a spouse or child, not parent.
3. whether he was prohibited from buying a firearm in RI under state law; apparently so.
4. whether he'd face problems for trying to buy a firearm in RI, thinking that he may be prohibited; I think the answer was "Yes" (in that prohibited persons attempting to purchase in RI is a state crime) (someone offered to "run his name" in the state system to check for him prior his attempted purchase, but he did not openly respond to the offer)
5. he got nasty with the posters who didn't give him the answers he wanted.

Then he returned under another screen name regarding expunging state criminal convictions, and the details of his situation outed him as the previous (banned) poster. He got nasty with the posters who didn't give him the answers he wanted.

I responded to his questions both times, but the threads are completely absent from the archives.  I assume that is a board policy thing, and don't fully understand why...

Now he's back, and he edited his original post in this thread to remove all references to RI, DV, etc., and he got nasty with the posters who didn't give him the answers he wanted. (see a pattern?)

Cheers, Otto

Quoted: Guardian, you could have refered him to the Constituion, Article 1, Section 8, which, after an extensive list of powers of the Congress, states Congress shall have the power "[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Yes but where does it give Congress the power to make the domestic violence law in the first place?  They cant make a law to enforce a law they never had the power to create in the first place.  MORON.

And you call yourself a lawyer?

Quoted: The government has overstepped its powers.  The Senate thinks it is their duty to make the laws that govern the people in this nation,  that is not the truth.  They determine the tax I pay, not the laws I follow.  They have very limited capability to make laws,  usually in regards to international law. In that the Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal Government (joining the executive and judicial branches), the fact that our hero of this story does "not recognize the right of the federal government to make laws at all" is a bit off-base. Having read the entire US Code, which is the manefestation of the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1-8, (and very little of it, relatively, to do with international law) you'd think our hero would realize that by now.

I dont respect the legislative branch of the federal government to make laws that they are not permitted to make with the powers granted to them by the United States Constitution.

Quoted: If Congress had amended the constitution which gave them the power to make all of these laws,  then I would not be making an argument.   ImplementofWar, a couple of questions for you: 1. Given the plain reading of the original Constitution, particularly Article 1-8, above, are we still lax in your eyes by not agreeing with your rationale to overturn "illegal" laws? 2. Given your statements, above, particularly "If Congress had ... the power to make all of these laws,  then I would not be making an argument", how does that fit with your definitions of "integrety" and "honor" and your dogged pursuit of a way around a personal prohibition from owning firearms based on a crime you did not contest in court?

1.  Yes,  you are traitorous for not agreeing with me.  And very stupid.  And you are the type of person that makes me WANT to own a gun.

2.  I did not contest the charge in court because I had done everything they had said I had done.  It was my  "honor" and "integrity" to not try and lie and weasel my way out of it.  It had given me an understanding of the justice system,  and the judicial system fails because they had enforced unjust laws upon me.  I LET them enforce unjust alws upon me so I can better judge their character.

FYI: PaDanby, our hero has been here in this legal forum under at least 2 prior screen names that IIRC have been banned for various reasons in posts in other forums.(search "ImplementofWar" for a hoot, one even ID's our hero as a 23 year old with a link to his pic) The issue as I recall is that he plead nolo contender to a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence against his father when he was 18. He was asking if 1. nolo contender is a "conviction"; it is, in that it is the same as pleading guilty under the law. 2. if that charge fits the FEDERAL definition of prohibited persons in 18 USC 922 et seq; debatably no, for the federal law defines DV as against a spouse or child, not parent. 3. whether he was prohibited from buying a firearm in RI under state law; apparently so. 4. whether he'd face problems for trying to buy a firearm in RI, thinking that he may be prohibited; I think the answer was "Yes" (in that prohibited persons attempting to purchase in RI is a state crime) (someone offered to "run his name" in the state system to check for him prior his attempted purchase, but he did not openly respond to the offer) 5. he got nasty with the posters who didn't give him the answers he wanted. Then he returned under another screen name regarding expunging state criminal convictions, and the details of his situation outed him as the previous (banned) poster. He got nasty with the posters who didn't give him the answers he wanted. I responded to his questions both times, but the threads are completely absent from the archives.  I assume that is a board policy thing, and don't fully understand why... Now he's back, and he edited his original post in this thread to remove all references to RI, DV, etc., and he got nasty with the posters who didn't give him the answers he wanted. (see a pattern?) Cheers, Otto

Because I am smarter then you?  That would be my answer to why I have no patience for people giving STUPID answers.

It is STUPID people that create problems in this world.  It is not me that creates problems.  For all you know the person deserved to be threatened because of their own immorality and that I was justified in my words.

If there werent STUPID people like you,  I would be able to purchase a firearm from another State.  We would all be able to own arms,  and we would be able to say and print in the press whatever the hell we wanted.

But STUPID people have decided that it is only possible when you are their definition of "good taste",  which does not fit my definition of someone who is in "good taste".  And does not fit the defintiion of the founding fathers idea of "good taste".


I paid my dues with probation for a "misdemeanor".  Now my constitutional right is suspended?  It was exactly that, a  misdemeanor.  Int he State of Rhode Island 'swearing' is a petty misdemeanor.  Something im sure even the holy and most informed otto has commited at least once in his life.

So I have nothing to say to you other then your an idiot.

The founding fathers had specifically said that no person will lose their right ot bear arms unless a felon or a rebel.  I am neither.

What do you have to say about that?  Besides that your a traitor AND an idiot.

Quoted: Yes but where does it give Congress the power to make the domestic violence law in the first place?  They cant make a law to enforce a law they never had the power to create in the first place.  MORON.

Question: do you remeber where you where when you pled nolo contender? State court, right? Charged with a state law, right? Having read the entire US Code, you'd know that the law you were charged and convicted under was a state law, not a federal law. Congress DOES NOT have the power, but they weren't the ones that drafted the law you broke in the first place.   "I also do not recognize the right of the federal government to make laws at all, as it is not prescribed to them in the Constitution" Sound familiar?  I was showing you where the Congress does have enumerated powers, including all the "necessary and proper" legislative power to carry out those powers -- Which include, incidentally, the power to regulate firearms and prohibit ownership due to STATE LAW violations.

And you call yourself a lawyer?

I don't have to; I have several states and several federal courts to do it for me. So whadda you got?  

Quoted: I dont respect the legislative branch of the federal government to make laws that they are not permitted to make with the powers granted to them by the United States Constitution.

It that it APPEARS that you were trying to reply to my previous statement, does that statement even make sense, or are you just ranting?  
ETA: I tried reading it again ... it still doesn't make any sense to me. But then again, I'm a "MORON".

Quoted: Quoted: ImplementofWar, a couple of questions for you: 1. Given the plain reading of the original Constitution, particularly Article 1-8, above, are we still lax in your eyes by not agreeing with your rationale to overturn "illegal" laws? 2. Given your statements, above, particularly "If Congress had ... the power to make all of these laws,  then I would not be making an argument", how does that fit with your definitions of "integrety" and "honor" and your dogged pursuit of a way around a personal prohibition from owning firearms based on a crime you did not contest in court? 1.  Yes,  you are traitorous for not agreeing with me.  And very stupid.  And you are the type of person that makes me WANT to own a gun. 2.  I did not contest the charge in court because I had done everything they had said I had done.  It was my  "honor" and "integrity" to not try and lie and weasel my way out of it.  It had given me an understanding of the justice system,  and the judicial system fails because they had enforced unjust laws upon me.  I LET them enforce unjust alws upon me so I can better judge their character.

Re: 1. Suggestion: look up "Ad Hominum" (or "personal attack") and then check to see why it is used as a desparate argument tool by those who can't win on the merits.

Re: 2. line 1. good thing you pled nolo contender then isn't it?

line 2. the honor and integrity questioning rolled forth so easily when you were attacking my supported responses, above.  I merely wondered if you knew what they really meant regarding the Constitution, the rights of Congress to make the laws of which you are complaining, and the consequences of your own admitted guilt under state law.  
You stated that if Congress legitimately had the power, you'd stop arguing.  I showed you where the Constitution granted that power and then asked if you'd uphold your statement and stop arguing...  I have my answer.

lines 3-4. Well, the consequences of you letting them drive the judicial tank over you as you stood defiantly in the road is two-fold: you can judge their character (whoever "they" are) and you can't ever own firearms.  Suggestion for next screen name, since "ImplementofWar" doesn't really seem to fit you: "self-righteous (unarmed!) martyr"

Quoted: Because I am smarter then you?  That would be my answer to why I have no patience for people giving STUPID answers. It is STUPID people that create problems in this world.  It is not me that creates problems.  For all you know the person deserved to be threatened because of their own immorality and that I was justified in my words. If there werent STUPID people like you,  I would be able to purchase a firearm from another State.  We would all be able to own arms,  and we would be able to say and print in the press whatever the hell we wanted. But STUPID people have decided that it is only possible when you are their definition of "good taste",  which does not fit my definition of someone who is in "good taste".  And does not fit the defintiion of the founding fathers idea of "good taste".

I don't even know where to begin on that set of statements...

Quoted: I paid my dues with probation for a "misdemeanor".  Now my constitutional right is suspended?  It was exactly that, a  misdemeanor.  Int he State of Rhode Island 'swearing' is a petty misdemeanor.  Something im sure even the holy and most informed otto has commited at least once in his life.

In your reading of the entire US Code, did you happen to notice that one and only one misdemeanor crime is singled out as grounds for prohibition of firearm ownership?  I'll refresh your memory: 18 USC 922(d)(9) Can you guess? Hint: it aint fucking swearing...
Now, I'd ask if you could guess why that one misdemeanor crime, of all the realm of misdemeanor crimes, is singled out, but not misdemeanor assault, or anything like that, but I think you've already shown that you have no clue.

So I have nothing to say to you other then your an idiot. The founding fathers had specifically said that no person will lose their right ot bear arms unless a felon or a rebel.  I am neither.

I'd love to see your source for this; which founding father? "specifically" said where?
After the entire US Code, the Federalist Papers should be a breeze for you to get through for those answers.

What do you have to say about that?  Besides that your a traitor AND an idiot.

All I have to say to that is 1. Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're"
And it really should be "So I have nothing to say to you other thAn THAT you'RE an idiot"

And also 2. "thank you" for proving that if someone disagrees with you and provides support from the very documents you misrepresent, you resort to personal attack, gloss over the fact that you'd been called out and proven wrong, and insist on wallowing in your ignorance, all the while ranting incoherently.

3. being called an "idiot" because I don't agree with your mis-interpretation of history and government is no big deal; as for my statements and quotes of the US Code and Constitution and support for the public policy behind prohibiting gun ownership to those convicted of DV-- if that makes me a "traitor", I'm in excellent company. Beyond that, mind your tongue.

And finally, "thank you" again, for this has been kind of a fun argument, in a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel sort of way.

Cheers, Otto

omg!!  I thought my life sucked......poor fella.  Doesn't have a chance at all.  

Good read though.  

Quoted: Yes but where does it give Congress the power to make the domestic violence law in the first place?  They cant make a law to enforce a law they never had the power to create in the first place.  MORON. Question: do you remeber where you where when you pled nolo contender? State court, right? Charged with a state law, right? Having read the entire US Code, you'd know that the law you were charged and convicted under was a state law, not a federal law. Congress DOES NOT have the power, but they weren't the ones that drafted the law you broke in the first place.   "I also do not recognize the right of the federal government to make laws at all, as it is not prescribed to them in the Constitution" Sound familiar?  I was showing you where the Congress does have enumerated powers, including all the "necessary and proper" legislative power to carry out those powers -- Which include, incidentally, the power to regulate firearms and prohibit ownership due to STATE LAW violations.

The Constitution says no State shall make or "enforce" any law that abridges on the rights and privelages granted by the Constitution.  By enforcing domestic violence laws,  they are violating my 2nd amendment right BECAUSE the federal law unconstitutionally forbids people with DV convictions from owning firearms.

As far as the federal government making laws,   SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IT ALLOWS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE ARMS.  SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IT ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE LAWS CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

There is nowhere in the Constitution that allows them to do so,   so dont bother.  

And you call yourself a lawyer? I don't have to; I have several states and several federal courts to do it for me. So whadda you got?

A brain.

Quoted: I dont respect the legislative branch of the federal government to make laws that they are not permitted to make with the powers granted to them by the United States Constitution. It that it APPEARS that you were trying to reply to my previous statement, does that statement even make sense, or are you just ranting?   ETA: I tried reading it again ... it still doesn't make any sense to me. But then again, I'm a "MORON".

It means exactly what it says.

I DONT RESPECT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKING LAWS THEY HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE WITH THE POWERS GRANTED TO THEM BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

I guess getting qualified as a lawyer doesnt invovle BASIC READING SKILLS.

ImplementofWar, a couple of questions for you: 1. Given the plain reading of the original Constitution, particularly Article 1-8, above, are we still lax in your eyes by not agreeing with your rationale to overturn "illegal" laws? 2. Given your statements, above, particularly "If Congress had ... the power to make all of these laws,  then I would not be making an argument", how does that fit with your definitions of "integrety" and "honor" and your dogged pursuit of a way around a personal prohibition from owning firearms based on a crime you did not contest in court? Re: 1. Suggestion: look up "Ad Hominum" (or "personal attack") and then check to see why it is used as a desparate argument tool by those who can't win on the merits.

I already won this argument.  Your logic is faulted.  Your brain doesnt work,  and me insulting you is just my lack of patience trying to drill it into your brain.  Im not going to waste my time trying to enlighten you,  id rather just insult you since your not deserving of my enlightenment.


line 2. the honor and integrity questioning rolled forth so easily when you were attacking my supported responses, above.  I merely wondered if you knew what they really meant regarding the Constitution, the rights of Congress to make the laws of which you are complaining, and the consequences of your own admitted guilt under state law.  
You stated that if Congress legitimately had the power, you'd stop arguing.  I showed you where the Constitution granted that power and then asked if you'd uphold your statement and stop arguing...  I have my answer.


Show me where in Article I - Section 8 it gives the power to make laws regulating firearms,  and then show me where it allows them to make laws regarding domestic violence.  It doesnt.

Yes I question your honor and integrity because to me your argument was weak and below my ideal of trying to restore my respect in you.  Your argument was "Go read Article I - Section 8".  Well I have read Article I - Section 8 at least 1000 times in my lifetime,  are you telling me I dont know what it means?

Which is why your argument is not valid.  Article I - Section 8 does not give the federal government any power you seem to think it does.

In your reading of the entire US Code, did you happen to notice that one and only one misdemeanor crime is singled out as grounds for prohibition of firearm ownership?  I'll refresh your memory: 18 USC 922(d)(9) Can you guess? Hint: it aint fucking swearing... Now, I'd ask if you could guess why that one misdemeanor crime, of all the realm of misdemeanor crimes, is singled out, but not misdemeanor assault, or anything like that, but I think you've already shown that you have no clue.

WTF,  over.  English please.

The federal law says "anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence".

Domestic violence includes domestic disorderly conduct.  Disorderly conduct = threatening someone or trying to intimidate.  Which means if you swear at or yell at someone in your household,  you will be charged with a domestic violence charge if they call the police on you.



So I have nothing to say to you other then your an idiot.

The founding fathers had specifically said that no person will lose their right ot bear arms unless a felon or a rebel.  I am neither.

I'd love to see your source for this; which founding father? "specifically" said where?
After the entire US Code, the Federalist Papers should be a breeze for you to get through for those answers.

"Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion. -- James Madison"

I have read just more then the Federalist Papers,  The Constitution,  and the US Code.  Which is obviously more then you have.

All I have to say to that is 1. Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're" And it really should be "So I have nothing to say to you other thAn THAT you'RE an idiot" And also 2. "thank you" for proving that if someone disagrees with you and provides support from the very documents you misrepresent, you resort to personal attack, gloss over the fact that you'd been called out and proven wrong, and insist on wallowing in your ignorance, all the while ranting incoherently. 3. being called an "idiot" because I don't agree with your mis-interpretation of history and government is no big deal; as for my statements and quotes of the US Code and Constitution and support for the public policy behind prohibiting gun ownership to those convicted of DV-- if that makes me a "traitor", I'm in excellent company. Beyond that, mind your tongue. And finally, "thank you" again, for this has been kind of a fun argument, in a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel sort of way. Cheers, Otto

Your an idiot.  Thats just the truth.  Im sorry that you are mentally defective.  Im sorry if you are insulted.  But its just the truth.

You're an idiot.

Otto, don't do it, it's not worth it.  Just move on, nothing to see here folks . . .

Are you kidding me?!?  This is great stuff.  

We're all witness to a Timothy McVeigh / Ted Kaczynski in the making!!

Quoted: Otto, don't do it, it's not worth it.  Just move on, nothing to see here folks . . .

Steve, why did you give up the job of moderator again?

I'm still laughing from this, since you are obviously right -- logic cannot prevail here.

However, regarding our hero's alleged quote: "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion. -- James Madison"

Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

When New Hampshire gave the Constitution the ninth vote needed for its passing into effect, it called for adoption of a Bill of Rights which included the provision that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion".

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms   REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION  of the UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1982

So, it is a quote, but its NOT from the Federalist Papers (you can search them here The Library of Congress: Federalist Papers (full-text ))
and it is NOT from Madison.
And it was REJECTED in preference of the current Second Amendment, as ratified.

But I'm sure our hero knew that...

I'm sure he also knows that he's not citing the definition of DV, as passed by Congress, as oppossed to whatever they have as a state law in RI.  
(BTW, this was also part of my reply to his first questions on this topic under his original screenname)

Quoted: The federal law says "anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence". Domestic violence includes domestic disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct = threatening someone or trying to intimidate. Which means if you swear at or yell at someone in your household, you will be charged with a domestic violence charge if they call the police on you.

18 USC 921  DEFINITIONS

(a) As used in this chapter— (33) (A) ... the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that— (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

Harsh words and/or swearing at someone aint gonna get you in trouble with the feds.  As I told our hero on page 1, he's really facing a state issue.


ToolofWar: I'll be looking for your Op-Ed in the Washington Post where Congress is finally told, after over 200 years, that they actually do not have the powers to (fill in the blank).


BTW: what will you call your   little utopia when you finally secede from the Union? for that's obviously where you're headed.


In that you've finished the Federalist Papers, try a little Shakespeare:

"Tis the sport to have the enginer, hoist with his own petard"

Cheers, Otto

Tool....... you have been PWN3D and just wont stop.


And please, for the love of Pete, dont stop! The comedy is hillarious!

Quoted: Quoted: Otto, don't do it, it's not worth it.  Just move on, nothing to see here folks . . . Steve, why did you give up the job of moderator again? I'm still laughing from this, since you are obviously right -- logic cannot prevail here.

I wanted a break- I had been doing it since 1998 and just got sick of the moronic blather spewed by the likes of our hero here and complete retards like rjroberts in the M16 bolt thread.  I can't tell you how refreshing it is to sit on the sidelines now and laugh at the Corkys of this board.  

At any rate, there is some entertainment value in engaging our own little Kaczynski here, just don't play with him as if he's worthy of an actual debate- that is truly a waste of time.

Steve