In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
No Particular Topic
Comengetit
Member Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just saw this as an answer to my posted poll as suggested I do, thanks Highball.
"No adult citizen of this nation should be prohibited from owning and possessing any firearm unless that citizen be lawfully confined, imprisoned and/or under armed guard subsequent to legal arrest by a lawful state authority, or that a citizen having been examined and found to be mentally incompetent should be prohibited from possessing a firearm so long as he is mentally incapacitated."
"Except in extremely rare cases, rights to gun ownership should be immediately restored to the citizen following his release from confinement and/or the finding of sanity."
"I believe that to be the way America's founders believed and its good enough for me."
Aaahh, How refreshing!
"90% of the game is mental, the other 50% is physical"- Yogi Berra, New York Yankees
"No adult citizen of this nation should be prohibited from owning and possessing any firearm unless that citizen be lawfully confined, imprisoned and/or under armed guard subsequent to legal arrest by a lawful state authority, or that a citizen having been examined and found to be mentally incompetent should be prohibited from possessing a firearm so long as he is mentally incapacitated."
"Except in extremely rare cases, rights to gun ownership should be immediately restored to the citizen following his release from confinement and/or the finding of sanity."
"I believe that to be the way America's founders believed and its good enough for me."
Aaahh, How refreshing!
"90% of the game is mental, the other 50% is physical"- Yogi Berra, New York Yankees
Comments
The BATFE and FBI have been ammassing all of the information they can on all of the guns and who owns them. There won't be the possibility of an option "C" from the other thread. So I offer one solution to that minor problem.
Place an ad in your local paper to sell your guns. Itemize them and list all of the guns that you were checked before you bought. When you get the calls you simply say a gun collector came and bought them all. Keep your invoice and a copy of the ad. Do this quickly before they take away the private sales provision of NICS. When the time comes give them your cheap * Hi-Point and tell them you sold the rest. They won't believe you so have a COPY of the invoice available to them. They will ask who bought them, you will say I don't know there were several different people who bought different guns. They will check your home, don't have them there. They WILL come back and search again maybe even a third time. Have them in a safe place that you can get to in a hurry. Don't keep anything around the house tied to the weapons i.e. extra stocks, grips, compensators, or ammo. Paranoid? You Bet!
They are positioning themselves as to fascilitate the element of surprise. They will go for the Machine guns and heavy stuff first. If you don't see the weapon being practical in CQB or Guerilla warfare, give them up but keep what you will need. If you have an NFA weapon you probably better plan on giving it up, but only if they ask as their records are so screwed up they don't know who has what anymore. Make them ask specifically, they will guess and troll.
Don't bury anything in your yard and if you do bury it, put it in an enclosed, air tight PVC tube with silicon packets for moisture. If you have a .50 cal and think you would give it up, get it into the right persons hands. We will need all of the .50BMG's we can muster up as well as all of the API & APIT ammo you can get.
Oh it's coming, it's only a matter of when!
Why is it that we park in a driveway & drive in a parkway?
I agree, 18 and over for gun purchase is a good idea. Otherwise the parent/guardian should be the purchaser and legal owner of the gun until the minor is of age (I think that is basically the case in all property matters, right?).
quote:confined, imprisoned and/or under armed guard subsequent to legal arrest by a lawful state authority
I would basically summarize this as someone either convicted of a felony, someone pending trial for a felony, or someone with a warrant out for their arrest.
quote:that a citizen having been examined and found to be mentally incompetent should be prohibited from possessing a firearm so long as he is mentally incapacitated
I don't go for this, the psychiatrists have way too much wiggle room in defining "mentally incompetent" and "mentally incapacitated". I think the way to handle "mental" cases from getting firearms is to pursue them as criminals after they have commited a crime. If they are calculating enough to keep a clean record, save up the money for a gun, go into a gun shop, fill out all the forms, and purchase a firearm, then they obviously have some mental capacity. But as soon as they commit a felony then I say nail 'em, just like any other felon.
quote:Except in extremely rare cases, rights to gun ownership should be immediately restored to the citizen following his release from confinement and/or the finding of sanity.
I already said my stance on the "sanity" part. As for the felons, I have no problem with convicted felons loosing rights for the rest of their life. I know gunphreak has expressed a similar position as the one you describe, basically that you serve your time then you get your guns back. If we lived in a truly just society then I may go for that, but we don't. I see "early releases" and time-off for "good behavior" all the time. We had two recent incidents here in Nevada alone that involved guards letting a prisoner escape and another where the head of prisons was letting out prisoners way early for "good behavior" (like serving 2 years on a 7 year sentence).
If we kept them locked up like we should then I may go for it, but if we are gonna release the felons early and expect them to have learned their lesson, then I say no way. They have lost their Constitutional rights through due process of law.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
If we kept them locked up like we should then I may go for it, but if we are gonna release the felons early and expect them to have learned their lesson, then I say no way. They have lost their Constitutional rights through due process of law.
-WW
That's easy enough to remedy, add that to the sentence. Whatever the time they get so go the guns for that long. Whether they get early release or not. Make it manditory that you lose your civil rights for a period not less than or greater than XX number of years.
"90% of the game is mental, the other 50% is physical"- Yogi Berra, New York Yankees
1) There are violent and non-violent felons. What purpose is served by taking a gun away from a non-violent felon who has served his time? If he can't be trusted with a weapon he doesn't need to be on the streets at all, because if he wants one he can get it, illegal or not.
2) I don't see how a free person can have a "right" taken away. The 2nd Ammendment is part of the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of Privilages". A convicted felon does not lose his right to freedom of religion, assembly, or speech. Why is owning a gun any different?
Molon Labe
"90% of the game is mental, the other 50% is physical"- Yogi Berra, New York Yankees
A convicted felon is inherently NOT free. And the Bill of Rights makes no distinction between violent felonies or non-violent felonies, in fact the word "felony" is not even used. There is only a distinction between "crimes" and "capital" or "infamous" crimes. The Fifth Amendment states:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
The felony conviction is the due process of law, as long as it follows the parameters of the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. therefore they can have all of their liberties (rights) denied if the law deems it so."
Groups like Amnesty International try to claim that they are advocates for "prisoners rights", whereas in my interpretation, the only rights that convicted criminals really retain in the United States of America are those enumerated in the Eigth Amendment:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Prisoners certainly have their freedom of assembly infringed, but you are correct that there is much hesitation to infrige upon their freedom of speech or religion. However, speaking in purely legal terms, I see no reason why all of their freedoms couldn't be denied through the due process of law. But groups like Amnesty International and the ACLU would be beating down the doors of the Dept. of Justice if that happened.
My personal point of view is that convicted felons (when imprisoned) have obviously lost their liberties under the Bill of Rights, except those stated in the Eighth Amendment. The real question is when (if ever) a convicted felon regains those rights. Some here think that happens the moment they leave incarceration, others say that it should be set by a judge at the time of sentencing, regardless of their incarceration (to exclude time off for good behavior, parole, probation, etc.).
I think there should be a probationary period after the felon is released from prison (or after the term of their sentence). Maybe 5 years mandatory probation, then their rights can be restored. I would say if they can be good on the outside for 5 years then it is unlikely that they will be a repeat felon. Remember, in many places convicted felons supposedly can't even vote.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
quote:If it comes to the "goose stepping brownshirts" knocking on my door then my friends, the time will have come. We will be in the fight for not only our lives but our way of life and everything we believe heart and soul in, FREEDOM!!
Now that's what I call an American. Molon Labe!
Hey WW, I just missed your post. I've read it and I agree with everything you said that I said.[;)][:D][8D][:p][:0][:)][:)][:)]
"90% of the game is mental, the other 50% is physical"- Yogi Berra, New York Yankees
As I said before, if a judge feels that a person still poses a threat to the community, why let him out in the first place?
I'd like to try a different angle on this arguement.
The second ammendment applies to the militia. "Being necessary to the defence of a free state...".
The unorganized militia (according to the militia act, passed in 1797 I think) consists of all able-bodied males ages 17-45.
If an able bodied male, by law, belongs in the militia.....and the the second ammendment says that the militia is necessary to the defence of the state, therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.........wouldn't that mean that the felon in question should have a gun?
Your point on due process of law is a valid one, however, I'm just wondering how you see this....
Molon Labe
NOTICE; I am not discussing the present busted system..where judges let out vicious animals to incarcerate pot smokers..
A felon properly judged,convicted and forced to serve 3,5,10 years of REAL labor...should walk out the jail door a free man.
"He Paid His Debt to Society"
You younger folks may never have heard this statement..that is just how much the power-mad have changed the world/ Felons, you see, now are controlled for the rest of their lives..a nirvana ideal for the Elite for the rest of us, also...
Along with the handing back of a mans' .45...comes a warning. Use that .45 in the commission of a crime...and the sentence is automatic hanging...within 30 days. Then have the actual guts to do exactly THAT...
Convicted Felons;
NOTICE; I am not discussing the present busted system..where judges let out vicious animals to incarcerate pot smokers..
A felon properly judged,convicted and forced to serve 3,5,10 years of REAL labor...should walk out the jail door a free man.
"He Paid His Debt to Society"
You younger folks may never have heard this statement..that is just how much the power-mad have changed the world/ Felons, you see, now are controlled for the rest of their lives..a nirvana ideal for the Elite for the rest of us, also...
Along with the handing back of a mans' .45...comes a warning. Use that .45 in the commission of a crime...and the sentence is automatic hanging...within 30 days. Then have the actual guts to do exactly THAT...
That sits and works well for me. Just make sure they do serve their time doing the hard labor and not watching tv, playing sports and getting overly educated on our dime.
ja, you just gave me a thought (scary). How about this; you, as an inmate get to choose what type of benefit you receive out of your stay by picking which hard labor to perform. The harder the labor the better the reward. You know kind of like life.
"90% of the game is mental, the other 50% is physical"- Yogi Berra, New York Yankees
This is part of the overall scheme. Make EVERYTHING not specifically ennumerated a 'crime'...versus the Founders...things ENNUMERATED were crimes...see the difference ?
In a SANE world..sans the "New World Order Types"...criminal acts would once again be acts againts citizens..and not the 'state'.
Police Officers would once again be "Peace Officers"..charged with keeping the peace...and NOT revenue officiers for the state or city.
HVOF, I would say that the "due process" would still trump this one. If we assume that participation in the militia is a "liberty", then once again that could be denied to an individual by the courts. Basically the Bill of Rights says that they can take away all your liberties and even kill you, just as long as they follow due process of law. The only saving grace is the Eighth Amendment, at least they can't torture you or impose "excessive" fines.
quote:A felon properly judged,convicted and forced to serve 3,5,10 years of REAL labor...should walk out the jail door a free man.
Highball, this would be a nice model, but our current system is so far from it. My main concern is the "career" felon. The one who simmers in prison, learning all the tricks of the trade from the other felons, waiting for the day to get sprung so he can try them out. It would be nice to think that the commission of a second felony would mean instant death, but we all know that ain't gonna happen in this society. I still say we give them a 5 year probation with suspended liberties. If they are a model citizen for those 5 years then they can be reinstated.
quote:This is part of the overall scheme. Make EVERYTHING not specifically ennumerated a 'crime'...versus the Founders...things ENNUMERATED were crimes...see the difference ?
In a SANE world..sans the "New World Order Types"...criminal acts would once again be acts againts citizens..and not the 'state'.
Police Officers would once again be "Peace Officers"..charged with keeping the peace...and NOT revenue officiers for the state or city.
I agree with you there, Highball. I think one of the problems we have today are the increasingly broad interpretations of what could be considered a felony, especially among gun laws. It doesn't make sense to me that you can be arrested in Kalifornia for a felony of brandishing a firearm at a law enforcement officer simply by making a "gun" shape with your fingers. But even given those types of asenine laws, I still don't have much sympathy for convicted felons.
I've gotten my share of speeding tickets, but I've never even come close to being arrested, let alone put on trial for a felony. My personal opinion is that 99% of felons had to work to get that felony (repeat offenders, resisting arrest, actually making the "gun" with their fingers and pointing it at a cop, etc.). I'm sure there is the unfortunate 1% that truly was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but thus is life.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
quote:The manner in which we as a people have been led like sheep by a sheperd through the all entangling web of deception is nothing short of genius. A plan so well orchestrated that the very notion, no matter how well conceived, that we as a populous would be so blind as to aimlessly follow into that great abyss of servitude eats at the pit of my stomach. The militia's non-existance as an organized band of brothers united against a common cause is a testament to the hiearchy of this United States Federal Government and their outwardly obvious never ending campaign to tighten the reigns ever more until we are without breath. For they have underestimated our unwavering commitment to forever uphold the Constitution and all of her liberties contained within. A few good men per every hundred, this fight, this struggle between good and evil that knows of no bounds our valor be infinite and our vision be clear. It is thee for whom the bell tolls, let freedom ring.-comengetit
There are two kinds of people in this World.....Those that lead....And those that get the hell out of the way....GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Artical I
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Note: EVERY CITIZEN
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
Section 20. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
Note: INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN
There are two kinds of people in this World.....Those that lead....And those that get the hell out of the way....GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Read that post with great appreciation. The Founders understood that they were a 'small band of brothers'..that were freedom to ring forth for ALL..that few men were going to have to shoulder incredible burdens...carrying along a nation of sluggards.
History proves their sacrifice and courage carried the day.
Until, like termites working in the walls, the British won the day by attrition...wearing down with the power of the pen all the glorious advances these men made for the human condition...
HVOF, I would say that the "due process" would still trump this one. If we assume that participation in the militia is a "liberty", then once again that could be denied to an individual by the courts.
Participation in the militia is a liberty? I would have assumed it is a "duty". Kinda like paying taxes......ok, bad analagy, but you get my point, right? [;)]
Molon Labe
Not sure on that one, HVOF. Maybe the courts will interpret that one for us someday. [;)]
I do think this is a good example for those that claim the Bill of Rights is such a simple and clear cut document that any 8th grader could read. Yes, the english is not complicated, but the meaning can be very complicated. There is ambiguity in the document and a lot of room for interpretation, especially when it has to be applied to real court cases.
I greatly admire the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't doubt that it may even have been divinely inspired, but we have to remember that it WAS written by men. It is not a perfect document, and I think its writers would be the first to admit it.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
"Interpretation" depends on the person reading it, not the person who wrote it.
For example, lets say I own a Doberman. I post signs around my property stating "beware of dog". My intent is to tell someone who may wander onto my property that I have a dog, and to beware of him. If you get bit by him its your own damn fault. Its really that simple.
Thanks to "interpretation" from judges if someone wanders into my yard and my dog bites him, I will be liable because according to the sign I knew my dog was dangerous to others.
I stand firmly on what the founders original intent was.
The founders intended that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. There was no "background check" or prevention of ex-cons from owning a weapon then.
If you feel that such measures are necessary, and the founders were wrong, you may ammend the constitution......
Molon Labe
What it is that these Supreme Court Justices are reading I don't know but it ain't good ole amendment number 2 that's for sure. Theyz edjumicated folk too.
There are two kinds of people in this World.....Those that lead....And those that get the hell out of the way....GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Go back and read the US Code...the part about specific exclusions..
It is so sad, the number of people that cannot understand simple English...The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms SHALL NOT Be Infringed.....Even the President of this nation isn't smart enough to comprehend such a simple statement.....Or, more likely..he fully understands and knows that would be terribly inconvenint to his future plans.
"Security is everyones responsibility"
How come they don't want to apply that to the normal US citizen? Too power hungry I suspect.
I read nowhere in the Constitution where anyone is obligated to serve in the Militia. In fact, there is no definition of the "Militia" in the Constitution whatsoever, which is unfortunately why we have to battle many of these gun laws in the first place. Those of us on the pro-gun side tend to point to the US Code's definition of the Militia. Yet there is also US Code that restricts firearms ownership (NFA 1934 & GCA 1968 to name a couple). Since all Federal law is supposed to be in line with the Constitution, we have to go back to that document as our ultimate source. But the Constitution does not always provide clear and concise answers, and YES at times it can be ambiguous.
quote:"Interpretation" depends on the person reading it, not the person who wrote it...
I stand firmly on what the founders original intent was.
The founders intended that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. There was no "background check" or prevention of ex-cons from owning a weapon then.
Really? You must be an exceptionally enlightened individual. If you read the Federalist Papers then you will find that even the Founders didn't agree on how certain portions of the Constitution should be interpreted, and that was before it had even been ratified!
Since you have so much clarity about the Bill of Rights, can you explain the following ambiguities to me please:
"Amendment III
Ratified on 12/15/1791
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
So basically the government can declare war and make a law to quarter troops on your property. Kind of a self-defeating amendment, don't you think?
"Amendment IV
Ratified on 12/15/1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Okay, who defines "unreasonable" and "probable cause"? Of course the courts do. Pretty subjective.
"Amendment VII
Ratified on 12/15/1791
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Are they talking 1791 dollars here? I can't even fill up my truck for 20 bucks!
quote:If you feel that such measures are necessary, and the founders were wrong, you may ammend the constitution......
As I have said on other threads in this forum, I DO feel that another amendment may be the only way to clarify our INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. As of now the courts tend to interpret this as a collective right. I feel the founders did the best they could, but they also knew that they weren't perfect, that's why they DID build in the mechanism to amend the Bill of Rights.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
I base my statement that the militia is everyone on the fact that the Militia act passed during the same time frame as the Constitution.
Clearly it was the founders intent, many of the founders were the same lawmakers who passed the Militia act.
Since there is no definition of "Militia" in the constitution it appears to me that the the earliest definition of militia would be the most appropriate.
In regards to the III Ammendment, I don't think its meaning is unclear at all. It means that the goverment cannot house soldiers in a civilians home, during peacetime, without his consent. During wartime, this is subject to change. Since Congress is responsible for declaring war its not something that the government can readily do.
Amendment VII
Of course they are talking about 1791 dollars......they didn't know what a dollar in 2005 would be worth. Its quite easy to adjust this for inflation, without some judge "interpreting" it.
In regards to ammending the constitution to make the second ammendment clearer, what's the point?
It could be wrote out in crayon in large block letters and the govt. and courts will still ignore it.
Molon Labe
There are two kinds of people in this World.....Those that lead....And those that get the hell out of the way....GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Adjust for inflation? Why that sounds like interpretation to me! The Constitution says what it says and 20 dollars is 20 dollars! The all-knowing God-like Founders knew exactly what they were saying, and they meant 20 dollars forever! Can't you read?!?
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Adjust for inflation? Why that sounds like interpretation to me! The Constitution says what it says and 20 dollars is 20 dollars! The all-knowing God-like Founders knew exactly what they were saying, and they meant 20 dollars forever! Can't you read?!?
Wow, I must have touched a nerve, you seem to be getting quite pissy.....
All I have to say is that it doesn't matter what is wrote...
It can say "shall not be infringed"
or "owning a gun is a right all citizens have"
or "OWNING A GUN IS GOOD, PLEASE BUY ONE"
and "living document" losers will still "interpret" it to mean whatever they want.
Molon Labe
Everything ever written throughout all of time has been up for interpretation. The only chance we have at 100% clarity is the spoken word and even then, not often is it 100% clear. When we talk about the second amendment vs. say....."Dude, this beer is bad." we have much written period correct documentation discussing the very matter at hand by those who wrote it in the case of the first. As for the latter, no one in hell could be certain what that meant.
Quite frankly with all the spoken and written having been quoted the signers left us all the tools necessary to decipher, remarkably clearly what was intended by their words.
Second amendment means: Everyone has the right to protect life, liberty, state, country, and possessions and this should be done with weapons. This right to carry and own arms shall never be questioned and said arms shall be consistent with the United States Armed Forces. No encroachment, be it by law, amendment, or lack of necessity shall be permitted.
It's Good To Be The KING![:p][;)][:0][8D][:D]
There are two kinds of people in this World.....Those that lead....And those that get the hell out of the way....GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
I believe that we are all on the same side here, but I do have a bad habit of playing Devil's Advocate.[;)]
I was merely demonstrating through sarcasm that, yes, the Constitution occassionally requires some interpretation. Article 3 establishes "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". This gives the judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution as it applies to case law. This is important because they only have that power if a case is put before them. Remember, the source of "judicial" is "judge", which Webster defines as: "to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises".
Notice that you all kept going back to the Second Amendment, and I agree, the Second Amendment clearly says TO ME that we all have the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the courts have been inclined to interpret this as a "collective" right. The NRA has been stifling any 2nd Amendment cases from reaching the Supreme Court because they fear it may force an unfavorable outcome (or maybe favorable, thus putting the NRA out of business).
I say that we push for an amendment to the Bill of Rights that emphatically states that we have an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. An amendment that clearly reinforces another can do no harm, it has been done before (i.e. 14th Amendment). That way when the Supreme Court does get a gun rights case pushed in front of them, they will be forced to adhere to both this new amendment and the 2nd Amendment.
quote:losers will still "interpret" it to mean whatever they want.
I hear what you are saying here, HVOF, but we have two choices: A) be totally cynical and assume all is lost and wait for the big showdown (essentially Highball's tactic), or
If option B blows up in our face then option A is still on the table. If option B is successful, then perhaps it will save us all a lot of death and hardship.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
That part I can agree with...all you bright young men thinking about ways to prevent 'option A'..
As long as you understand that 'slowing the beast down is not part of the option'. Either think of a master stroke..or step back and let the beast rampage.
The 'slow it down' mentality of the NRA and so many people merely sells us into bondage one finger, one hand, one arm at a time.
For example: Lets say I'm a judge. The Legislature passes a law stating that free speech does not apply to the internet, due to the fact that the internet came into being 2 centuries after the document was written. As a judge, I would have the power to strike that law down as being "unconstitutional". However, I could NOT "interpret" the 1st Ammendment to mean that free speech on the internet is restricted.
If such was the case, then the founders envisioned us living in a society ruled by judicial fiat. In such a society the words to the constitution would be meaningless.......something that the founders obviously did not intend.
Molon Labe
If option B blows up in our face then option A is still on the table. If option B is successful, then perhaps it will save us all a lot of death and hardship.
When working with option "B."
How many YEARS (decades) should be dedicated to "working within the system?"
How many battles (proposed laws) do we have to fight, and loose? (compromise)
How many of our rights do we have to watch being taken away,
before option "A" becomes the "viable" alternative?
We should NOT have to supplicate them into following the constitution, considering the OATH that they SWORE TO, when they entered their office.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I'm not a lawyer or judge, just a computer geek, so this is just my interpretation... it is my understanding that it is a judge's role to apply existing law to specific cases. An "unconstitutional" law can be passed by the legislators, or the voters, but unless a specific case that challenges that law gets put before a court, that "unconstitutional" law could stay on the books forever.
Each court is bound by the laws that apply to its jurisdiction. It is not until you reach the Supreme Court that you get the final judgement as to whether that law is being applied to that specific case in a way that is in-line with the Constitution.
I think your Internet example is a good one. Obviously the Founders could never even fathom of such a thing. So it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether a law restricting free speech on the Internet conflicts with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
I could see three outcomes in such a case:
A. The Constitution says nothing about free speech on the Internet, therefore the Federal government has no power to regulate such a thing (but the states might).
B. The Constitution says nothing about free speech on the Internet, therefore the Federal government is not prohibited from regulating it (therefore the law stands).
C. Free speech on the Internet is a natural extension of the First Amendment, therefore the law is unconstitutional.
Does this sound right?
quote:How many of our rights do we have to watch being taken away,
before option "A" becomes the "viable" alternative?
Remember, we are not in control of "Option A", unfortunately it will happen on the other side's terms. We can cynically sit back all of our lives, but the "showdown" may never come. It is not our role to instigate it, only to be prepared for when it happens.
I personally don't think Option B and Option A are mutually exclusive. If we push for laws that repeal existing gun restrictions (without compromising by creating new ones) then our success will improve things. If we fail, then we are no worse off, and we will continue the march to the "showdown".
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Judge or not, choice C is the correct choice though...[;)]
Molon Labe
"It's all ball bearings now days fella's"
There are two kinds of people in this World.....Those that lead....And those that get the hell out of the way....GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Remember, we are not in control of "Option A", It is not our role to instigate it, only to be prepared for when it happens.
WW,
You are 100% correct.
But when do we consider it "instigated?"
When they pass UNconstitutional laws?
When they take up arms against us?
If so, how many of "us" does it need to be?
The UN-patriot act.
Waco Texas.
The list goes on.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Good call, Comengetit. And the worst part is that our friends at the NRA have been actively stifling gun lawsuits from reaching the Supreme Court. The prime example is the Silveira v. Lockyer case. The NRA's reasoning is that the court has been stacked too far to the left, therefore the decision would be a great blow to 2nd Amendment rights (which maybe would answer your question about when we consider things "instigated", Pickenup).
However, with the court moving back to the right (assuming Roberts pans out and the next nominee is truly a conservative) the NRA will have to show its true colors. Either they are shrewd legal tacticians or they are 2nd Amendment obstructionists that are merely facilitating the left-wing gun grab. I believe that the latest NOLA lawsuit, filed in cooperation with the other pro-2-A groups, is a hopeful sign that maybe they are indeed shrewd legal tacticians.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Quite simply, I blame the Democrats and greedy Republicans for this completely unacceptable turn of events over the last 145 years that has taken a once near perfect system and lowered it to beneath pond scum standards. IF IT"S NOT BROKEN DON"T FIX IT. BOTH parties are at fault and, as usual, when two behemouths confront each other the small, insignificant, every day man is the one who feels the pain of those results. There is only one solution and until all the p u s s i e s get off their candy * we won't be able to do that one thing. This government has got to be held accountable and who's going to do that? The Supreme Court, No! Congress, no! The people, YES! This is the only possible scenario that can assure that our country is restored to it's once great self. Democrats will bi**h the entire time we're fighting and dying, then they'll rest comfortably under the new and improved Constitution as it is clearly written to circumvent all challengers of her verbiage.
I don't want to change it's meaning, I want to clarify it so as there is never a need for interpretation. Call me what you will but, I'm right on this. It is going to take massive force to relegate change.
There are two kinds of people in this World.....Those that lead....And those that get the hell out of the way....GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?