The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 25, 2014, 02:05 PM   #26
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Anyone who isn't deathly afraid of what might emanate from a constitutional convention in today's times obviously hasn't had any exposure to the legislative process nor to the incredibly corrupt deals that are struck on our behalf each and every day - both in Congress and in our own state and municipal legislative bodies.
csmsss is offline  
Old February 25, 2014, 02:54 PM   #27
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
Quote:
Anyone who isn't deathly afraid of what might emanate from a constitutional convention in today's times obviously hasn't had any exposure to the legislative process nor to the incredibly corrupt deals that are struck on our behalf each and every day - both in Congress and in our own state and municipal legislative bodies.
It's much like the fear of moving ahead without one. It reminds me of the economists' joke: What if the price comes down? ans: that would be terrible - what if the price goes up? ans: that would be even worse.
eldermike is offline  
Old February 25, 2014, 03:27 PM   #28
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
You would need 38 states with the same roadmap for a Co-Co to be anything other than an expensive circus. I think it will happen, but not yet.
With more states going Shall Issue instead of May Issue, and the last presidential election being 26/24 on the State split, the chances of a Con-Con going anywhere especially on gun rights are slim to none I would think.

I doubt anything else would fare any better. Even my state which traditionally votes Blue nationally, has a Red state legislature. So anything my Senators would approve would be hard to ratify in the State House.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 25, 2014, 03:35 PM   #29
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
Quote:
With more states going Shall Issue instead of May Issue, and the last presidential election being 26/24 on the State split, the chances of a Con-Con going anywhere especially on gun rights are slim to none I would think.

I doubt anything else would fare any better. Even my state which traditionally votes Blue nationally, has a Red state legislature. So anything my Senators would approve would be hard to ratify in the State House.
We are not at a point of crisis yet. The sting of lost liberty will have to go much deeper than exists today. But we are on the right road, we will get there.
eldermike is offline  
Old February 25, 2014, 06:48 PM   #30
jrwhitt
Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2012
Posts: 33
Quote:
With more states going Shall Issue instead of May Issue, and the last presidential election being 26/24 on the State split, the chances of a Con-Con going anywhere especially on gun rights are slim to none I would think.
But also remember - some of those States are going Shall Issue by force and not by choice. If they are given a way to wriggle out of the requirements they would jump at the chance.
jrwhitt is offline  
Old February 25, 2014, 11:21 PM   #31
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
[quorw=thallub]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al
I only brought this up, because there are many other folks (on other gun boards) that are chaffing at the bit, for just such a thing to occur.
When you question some of those guys they claim it would be a "limited" Constitutional Convention to repeal the 17th amendment and add and an amendment requiring a balanced budget. Yeah, right!!!
The problem is, once you convene a CC, all the cards are on table.[/quote]

And I keep reading how this has never been done before, so we would have to abide by what is written within the Constitution itself...

Yeah well, it has been done. There is the precedent of the first Con-Con. In that one, we threw out the Articles of Confederation and substituted what we now know as the Constitution.

So yeah. Everything is on the table. Including if certain regions of this country even want to be associated with certain other regions.

Do you seriously think that if (most) of the West, or even South, can get out from under the fist of the East, they won't attempt such a thing?

I shudder to think what an actual Con-Con could bring.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 26, 2014, 09:07 AM   #32
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
Quote:
I shudder to think what an actual Con-Con could bring.
I agree. But it's necessary to enforce the constitution to prevent it. And that has to be done soon or we are headed for this crisis. IMHO
eldermike is offline  
Old February 26, 2014, 10:01 AM   #33
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Everything is on the table
Everything may be on the table, but what's the chance of anything getting OFF the table?

Is the (Region) going to allow the (Other Region) to leave? All those bases? Who get's ownership of the materiel? Does X% of Army tanks and helicopters, X% of Navy ships, Carriers, and aircraft, or X% of the gold in Fort Knox get split? The CIA assets, NSA feeds? If the Midwest or West Coast leaves, where does that leave Minot North Dakota. Who gets "the Football". The National Security questions alone for that sort of thing would be endless. Does my cousin Bobby a mile north of the border need a passport to come to my place a mile south of it for Christmas Dinner? Will people be able to come into West States from Mexico, then drive to East States on I-90? For that matter, who gets to use the name United States Of America? Ironically that could easily be the biggest deal breaker right there.

Now I suppose there are a few issues that could be and maybe should be enacted as a constitutional amendment (which isn't to say they should be enacted at all, but if passed should be an amendment as opposed to a mere public law) however almost anything that would make it out of a Constitutional Convention seems just as likely to make it through the Congressional/States amendment process.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 26, 2014, 01:12 PM   #34
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,427
Jim, your concerns are very real. Furthermore, we can expect the 14th Amendment (or anything similar) to go out the window.

So, I wake up one morning, and I'm a citizen of the People's Free Zone of Southern Appalachia. Huh? These guys are at my door saying I owe taxes to the Grand Vizier? Who do I talk to? I'm not allowed to criticize anything in public? I didn't vote for...what do you mean I can't leave? I need a visa and a change of residence variance to move to...what the ☠☠☠☠☠ is the Enlightened Duchy of Tallahassee?

I can scarcely imagine a more unpleasant scenario. Bonus question: who manages and coordinates national defense when China and Russia catch wind of this?

Hey, at least I don't have to wait 10 months for a Form 4. So, there's that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 26, 2014, 03:01 PM   #35
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,454
Well that's kind of what I was getting at. But more that that too. It's a nightmare if it happens, but If I can figure that sort of thing out, the people we'd send to a Con-Con probably already have. And they're not going to give up their piece of the assets making up the United States pie they "paid their taxes" to buy. No one is letting Kentucky keep the gold, North Dakota to keep their silos, or Georgia or Washington their SSBN's, that sort of stuff.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 26, 2014, 08:42 PM   #36
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 544
Quote:
So while a State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.
The only particularly useful part of these laws. As I understand atleast, The federal agencies really depend on state and local agencies to make their enforcement of the laws possible. When was the last time you saw ATF agents at the range checking in to see if anyone there has a machinegun they're not supposed to have? Or cruising the streets looking for thugs with a pistol int heir waistband? Who gets called when a guy walks into a gunshop trying to buy a gun with some shady motives? It ain't the ATF it's the local cops. They get the call and then let the ATF know about it if it's a federal matter. The cops are the ATF's eyes and ears on the ground. If the cops don't want to cooperate, the feds logistically can't enforce the law despite how much they'd like to.
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old February 27, 2014, 12:43 AM   #37
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,795
Yes the federal government will have resource issues enforcing federal gun laws without the help of state authorities. But where there's a will, there's a way. The federal government can temporarily bring federal officers into a State from other States.

If the federal government wants to, it can bring in a bunch of FBI and U. S. Marshalls and ATF agents from other States and set up stings or otherwise "get serious" for a limited period. Anyone caught up in that sort of short term aggressive enforcement program is going to be very unhappy with how things turn out.

The bottom line is that one can not sit back and relax thinking that since there aren't a lot of federal agents in Missouri he has nothing to worry about. The odds might be longer than if the State were also involved, but the possibility of getting caught still exists; and the stakes remain huge.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 27, 2014, 11:00 AM   #38
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,454
In addition to the FBI, ATF, DEA, and other federal departments with a police "arm" don't forget Posse Comitatus isn't a complete ban. The Navy has what appears to be a nice little write-up here about the history of the act, and the exemptions to the act currently in play. Here is a brief history/theory from the cases born from Wounded Knee in 73, and changes since then.

An excerpt from the first link (A US government site, and thus public use I believe) says:
Quote:
Second, over the years it has passed a fairly extensive array of particularized statutes, like those permitting the President to call out the armed forces in times of insurrection and domestic violence, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331-335.
This is because of what I think is the Insurrection Act of 1807 which provides:
Quote:
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
which I assume is at least part of what allowed Eisenhower to federalize the Arkansas National Guard and use them to enforce the integration of Central High School.

Cooper V Aaron also suggests violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution is warring against the Constitution. I don't think it would be difficult to convince people warring against the Constitution is insurrection.

Edited because I hit post instead of preview:

Finally we have 10 U.S. Code § 311 which appears to be part of the Dick Act, AKA The Militia Act of 1903.
Quote:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So if Missouri, or one of the other States that tried to nullify really wants to get in a Big Johnson contest, their State National Guard can be federalized, and shipped off to USAG Mannheim, if it isn't willing to support the federal police agencies in state. Afterwards another State's Federalized Guard, or the active-duty military itself can be sent into the nullifying State. They may or may not be able to participate in arrests and other seizures, but I would suspect they can. Finally, the figurative "nuclear option" would be to draft/call up every able-bodied male citizen or prospective citizen 17-45 in the unorganized militia and ship them off.

Of course, like our real nuclear option during the cold war, this is most likely mutually assured destruction. ABC/FOX/CBS/NBC running film of the Army rounding up men 17-45, and shipping them off to Alaska for their "militia training and indoctrination" isn't going to play well anywhere, but if the i's are dotted, and t's are crossed, a Lame Duck President isn't going to care very much about his re-election chances.

There is no winner in this sort of stand-off. Nor does Missouri even WANT to win. I'm sure they like the sound of nullification, but they also like the sound of tacking on federal charges or transfers to federal custody in the right situations.

Last edited by JimDandy; February 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 28, 2014, 02:34 PM   #39
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 508
As some of you have pointed out, some provisions of this legislation probably won't survive a legal challenge in federal court.

What I love about this is that I live in a state with the guts to pass it in the first place. The pro-2A mindset that let to this bill has previously given us Missouri residents the freedom to carry literally anywhere except federal facilities, with almost no fear of legal trouble. All laws concerning concealed carry are covered by Missouri RS571, which states that if I carry into one of those normally restricted areas such as a hospital, courthouse, or even a school, all that can happen is that I must leave the premisses if asked. If I won't leave and cops are called, I can only be fined $65 (first offense). As Handgunlaw.us has stated, firearms restrictions have very little impact here. And, miraculously, there's no blood in the streets.

Y'all ought to move here. All y'all.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old April 3, 2014, 04:53 PM   #40
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 508
Update

MO house has now passed a similar bill that does not include jail time for enforcing federal gun laws.

http://www.ky3.com/news/local/mo-hou...48998_25311172
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
motorhead0922 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10766 seconds with 9 queries