|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 25, 2012, 07:39 PM | #51 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And we thought it was over in North Carolina?
Quote:
|
|
May 25, 2012, 08:10 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
Wow, that's terrible! Need to publicize the names of all the NC politicians who signed off on/are pushing this thing.
Restricting rights in the home, the one place even the Brady Bunch agreed Heller and MCDonald cover...egad. Unelect them. |
May 25, 2012, 08:58 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
The proposed revisions to the Emergency Powers Ban were ugly. However, the explanation was provided that "What is becoming clearer, however, is that this might be a case of inadequately supervised staffers running amok."
At this point, the revisions drafted by staff have been withdrawn and we will have to see how the issue is addressed with oversight from the Majority Leadership (Republican). Moreover, revising a law that has been ruled unconstitutional is somewhat a waste of effort when the Senate should be focused on passing a restaurant carry bill passed by the House in the prior legislative session. Last edited by gc70; May 25, 2012 at 09:04 PM. |
May 26, 2012, 01:14 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
We almost want them to try. Without qualified immunity, their posteriors are exposed to significant financial ramifications. (And they really do not want their posteriors ramificated)
|
May 26, 2012, 06:30 AM | #55 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Can someone explain why/how the police would lose qualified immunity if they enforce a newly-written law? As has been noted, any new law is enforceable until a court rules that it's not Constitutional.
|
May 26, 2012, 07:54 AM | #56 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The longer explanation is that State actors cannot forbid the use of firearms for self-defense in the home. Under this legislation, such use would have to be "authorized" by local law. The State and local authorities have no power to prohibit nor authorize such use. Under Bateman, the State and local authorities have no power to prohibit nor authorize the defensive use of firearms in or out of the home. Such a law deprives you of your fundamental right to self defense, under color of law, and is actionable under a section 1983 suit. Any sheriff or other police authority trying to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law would lose any immunity that would otherwise attach. |
|
May 26, 2012, 08:07 AM | #57 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
With all due respect, Al, I disagree. Under a QI analysis, the officers will not be expected to make an assessment of the constitutionality of the new laws, or of the interaction between Heller and the new laws. Statutes are presumed constitutional, and LEO trying to enforce the new laws will likely be entitled to QI for operating on that presumption.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
May 26, 2012, 09:00 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
I'll be interested in how this plays out. What is QI?
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
May 26, 2012, 09:12 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Qualified Immunity
|
May 26, 2012, 10:26 AM | #60 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
May 26, 2012, 12:20 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
How quickly could the court act to issue an injunction against enforcement of a law that is substantially identical to a struck law?
|
May 26, 2012, 05:19 PM | #62 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
mp, no court can issue an injunction to prohibit enforcement of the new laws until someone has actually challenged the new law. It doesn't matter that the new laws are "substantially identical" to the old ones. Unless and until someone challenges the new law, regardless of how closely it tracks the old one, there's no "case or controversy" for the courts to hear.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
May 26, 2012, 05:37 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Thanks. So if a suit is filed, THEN how quickly could this NC court act?
It is stunning to me that the legislature has zero respect for our system of government. The court absolutely has the right and duty to interpret the constitution as it has faithfully done here, but this body would instead substitute it's will for the proper judgment of the court. There seems to be no honor among these lawmakers. Just shameful. Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 26, 2012 at 06:21 PM. |
May 26, 2012, 06:38 PM | #64 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
May 26, 2012, 07:11 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Thanks, Spats. A follow up 'Q', if you will. Aside from electoral consequences, if any, is there a point at which a recalcitrant legislature hostile to the rule of law faces consequences for repeatedly passing legislation KNOWN to be unconstitutional?
|
May 26, 2012, 08:11 PM | #66 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Not one of which I'm aware. The ballot box is really the only consequence. Legislators enjoy legislative immunity, to protect them from facing lawsuits every time they proposed or passed unpopular legislation.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
May 27, 2012, 09:31 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Maybe what we need is a constitutional amendment prohibiting legislative immunity... That might slow down the passing of ill concieved laws...
__________________
Molon Labe |
May 27, 2012, 09:36 AM | #68 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
I fear that such an amendment would have the effect of totally seizing up our legislatures. Legislators would either be too afraid of lawsuits to pass any laws, or they'd be so busy fending off lawsuits that they wouldn't have time to pass any.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
May 27, 2012, 10:24 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Cant really see how that would be bad... Im certainly not for being lawless but at the same time we cannot continue on the tidal wave of law passing as has been going on for quite some time.. Of course I also believe that the legislature should not be able to exempt themselves from the laws they pass.
__________________
Molon Labe |
May 27, 2012, 12:27 PM | #70 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
May 27, 2012, 04:26 PM | #71 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Given the current state of government affairs, I would be happy with a Constitutional amendment requiring that for the next ten years the Congress and the legislatures of the several states must repeal two laws for each new law they enact.
We also NEED a Constitutional amendment prohibiting unrelated amendments being tacked onto bills, either as "poison pill" provisions or "I'll get mine" provisions. Anything that potentially deserves to become law deserves to be debated on its own merits, not on the basis of whether or not its not bad enough to prevent legislators from voting for the bill to which it's attached. |
May 27, 2012, 05:48 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Im not sure what the ultimate answer is but concerning firearms it seems it will forever be easier to pass more laws banning whatever then we will ever be able to keep up with in appealing.
I do think there is a strong possibility in the next decade that the SCOTUS will spell out that guns and gun ownership is a civil right and that it is necessary that you can choose to possess arms for your defense most anywhere that isnt a specially limited area...
__________________
Molon Labe |
May 27, 2012, 08:43 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
|
|
May 29, 2012, 10:02 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Although it appears to be a moot point at this time, I'm going to chime in on the nature of qualified immunity. It is not necessary for a court to have declared the precise statute unconstitutional before one enforcing the statute may lose qualified immunity. The issue is whether "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent." To use an extreme example, police officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity simply because a new state law authorized them to shoot members of a racial minority on sight.
Here's a quote from a case on qualified immunity regarding a search, not a statute: Quote:
I have not analyzed the bill that was introduced (and now apparently dropped) to see if is close enough to the former statute to strip an enforcing officer from qualified immunity. |
|
November 3, 2012, 07:18 PM | #75 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Gura has submitted his costs. Roughly, 48K.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|