|
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 |
January 12, 2013, 12:21 PM | #26 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Among other things, any act by a state agent against a federal officer enforcing federal law raises issue under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, quoted elsewhere in this tread). Any attempt by a State to supersede federal law also raises issues under the Supremacy Clause. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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 Last edited by Frank Ettin; January 13, 2013 at 05:10 AM. Reason: correct typo |
||||||
January 12, 2013, 05:10 PM | #27 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Posts: 4
|
So your a lawyer? What form of law do you practice?
Evidence: lets see, everything revolves around the supremacy clause which was basically over written by the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore, all laws created by the federal government, not given authority by the Constitution, are, by default, un-constitutional. Therefore, each State has the obligation to refuse to enforce said law, as well as procecute any federal employee whom tries to enforce said law. I will agree, there is a problem with this. The States have, for years, given in to the federal authority. To the point that there is a precedence created over the years. This is difficult, if not nearly impossible to erase. But not completely impossible. (More on this later) What exactly does article II have to do with this? An explanation would be great here as I have my Constitution directly in front of me. Sorry for my ignorance, you must have ment article III. Either way, this power has not been given to the federal government. See the 10th amendment! (People easily forget that the first nine amendments are amendments the fed was banned from delegating and the 10th amendment reaffirmed that!) "See ratification debates" The supremacy clause can only be used if said authority is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. None of the first 10 amendments have been given to the fed through Constitutional amendment. Why do you think they are trying to pass the small arms treaty? Good call on this case you gave me! This case shows a people content to be slave, as is the case with the California State legislature, as well as many, not all, people living in this State. Case in point, the only reason the fed was involved was taxes. Had the persons in this case been buying the drug instead of growing it, none of this would have happened. As you see now, numerous States have legalized marijuana. The fed said they will not interfere. Why? Also, this shows the gross misconseption of the commerce clause. Article I Section 8, 2nd enumerated power; "To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The key word here being "among". If taken under original intent, this means between. Between the States! Not over the States as we see today. Of course, my Constitutional studies are a bit rusty and typing is difficult with one arm. Feel free to reply back. I need a good debate. As well, I did not mean to insult you. You seem like a knowledgeable person. In my humble opinion, most people have been mislead to believe the fed as the ultimate power in "These united States". This was far from the case. Early on anyway. |
January 12, 2013, 05:12 PM | #28 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Posts: 4
|
Of course, history in the "real world" is a far cry from the original intent of the Constitution!
|
January 12, 2013, 05:53 PM | #29 |
Member
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
|
The application of the commerce clause in Raich only makes logical sense to statist lawyers. No sane person would say that an outright prohibition through a tax that was then made impossible to pay and purported for public safety could be justified by the power to regulate commerce between the states. Pages upon pages of legalese to explain the reasoning of something that blatantly makes no sense whatsoever does not alter the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever. The whole purpose of growing your own food, making your own medicine, manufacturing your own guns, etc is to remove yourself and seperate your acquisition of these items from commerce. The idea that Congress has the authority to regulate personally acquired items for personal use under the guise of regulating interstate commerce would definitely take several teams of lawyers to twist the English language into something that resembles logic but reeks of tyranny.
|
January 12, 2013, 05:54 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
The following link takes one to an article dealing with this legislation.
http://www.infowars.com/wyoming-bill...rol-jail-feds/ You might have to paste it into your browser, that's what I had to do, then dig through some "chaff" that comes up. Looks as if things might get rather interesting re this proposal. In passing, I expect that a number of people, possibly a large number of people here have read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. Think, that in this proposal, there are echoes of the situations depicted by Mr. Ross? |
January 12, 2013, 07:42 PM | #31 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
"The application of the commerce clause in Raich only makes logical sense to statist lawyers."
Well, okay, fine, but you're still stuck with it. You can have total unanimity from everybody at this website, but so what? You can have 99% of the US population in agreement with you, but again, so what? Once SCOTUS rules, the hunt is over. _____ Much of the opening commentary of the Inforwars essay is Pi in the Sky BS. States can pass whatever laws or resolutions they want, but the feds have the bigger hammer. The only hope any state has in this BS is to file suit in federal court and go on up to SCOTUS--gun stuff, marijuana, or the legalization of mopery with intent to gawk. Newman's pipedream ain't worth the paper it ain't written on. And to suggest that the romantic tale that's given in the second half of Ross' UC is anything other than a divertissment is foolish in the extreme--and tantamount to advocating breaking the law. Not real smart. ________ IANAL. But I've been around since before they hauled in dirt. Folks would do better to keep the pressure on their Congresscritters, in particular reminding any recalcitrant Representative that there's an election in two years. Nattering about nullification is about as useful as peeing in the whiskey. |
January 12, 2013, 08:16 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
If a state tried to prosecute a federal agent for enforcing state law the agent could and would assert sovereign immunity. A state likely can't prosecute the federal government or it's agents(when acting within the scope of their duties) for a violation of state law. Idaho v. Horiuchi (ruby ridge case). (district court dismissed case, 9th circuit affirmed then reheard and reversed, and then was about to rehear the case again when Idaho dropped the charges)
I think in the case of a federal agent being arrested for simply enforcing federal law, it won't be as close of a call as Horiuchi. The supremacy clause, sovereign immunity, and the supreme court's interpretation of the commerce clause in Raich renders this law nothing but symbolic. The Constitution and Federal Law mean what the Supreme Court says they do. (Marbury v.s Madison) Until a federal law is held by a federal court to be unconstitutional it is the supreme law of the land. |
January 12, 2013, 09:41 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 13, 2013, 05:32 AM | #34 | |||||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, see --
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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 Last edited by Frank Ettin; January 13, 2013 at 11:24 AM. Reason: correct typo |
|||||||||
January 13, 2013, 12:09 PM | #35 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Posts: 4
|
Frank,
What form of law do you practice? You seem to know all there is about Constitutional law. You also seem to have the time and resources to look up each case pertaining to the Constitution. There is a little thing called original intent which has been used many times in the past for the Constitution. I do not have the time today to look up these cases. Sorry, I don't live for these forums. Sorry, precedent. I stand corrected. Irrelavent twaddle? Try quoting the rest of what I said on that issue! Typical lawyer, only using what you deem relevant. You have a serious misconception! If you think that what you see today, not only from the State but the people as well will not effect what happens in congress or the supreme court, you are sadly mistaken! "We the People" have made changes in the past! See the 17th, 18th, and 21rst amendments! If you honestly believe we cannot effect change today, you are the one living in a fantasy world! Also see the sagebrush rebellion. Everyday citizens effected change! Last edited by Al Norris; January 13, 2013 at 01:19 PM. Reason: edited paragraphs, for clarity |
January 13, 2013, 12:14 PM | #36 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
^^^^ Raven:
Frank is a well known and well respected expert here. He is thoughtful, insightful, understands the difference between "the way things are" and "the way things would be if we were able to have it the way we want it". He's described things the way they are and are likely to stay. You're describing a fantasy view of the way you (and probably a lot of us) *wish* they would be. Failing a "second american revolution" over this (which, frankly, is about as likely as having flying pigs that self-convert to chocolate covered bacon when shot), you're barking at the moon. Really... with four posts to your, er... "credit"... sit back and watch and enjoy the forum here for a while before further embarassing yourself. Willie . |
January 13, 2013, 12:17 PM | #37 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|||
January 13, 2013, 01:44 PM | #38 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Raven, you really should heed the advice from Mr. Sutton.
I think that Frank will be the first to admit that he doesn't know [b]all[/i] there is to know, in the field of Constitutional Law. However, there are certain subjects about the law that apply in general about all judicial procedures. One of those is that the Supreme Court is the last word on what is deemed constitutional and what is not. We may not like it, but this is the real world that we live and work in. As much as it might rankle you, it is the real world we deal with, here at TFL. I am not an attorney, of any kind. I have not formally studied the law. Yet through the years, I have learned a thing or two. Which is why you won't see too many disagreements with how I report on the various cases. What Frank has written, in this thread, is general interpretation of the rules and statutes that govern the applicable law. He is not wrong, here. What Wyoming is doing, is really a symbolic act. It has no real consequence if ever applied to federal agents. The only game changer would be if 38 States all passed the same type of statutes. I'll let you figure out why. |
January 13, 2013, 01:45 PM | #39 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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 Last edited by Frank Ettin; January 13, 2013 at 02:26 PM. Reason: correct typo |
||||||
January 13, 2013, 02:02 PM | #40 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I see we cross-posted, Frank!
|
January 13, 2013, 02:27 PM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|
January 13, 2013, 02:39 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,395
|
Watching a new poster try to take on Frank in a law debate was like watching the Discovery channel. You see the polar bear behind the happy little seal, but the seal doesn't.
Heck, I'm a second-year law student and I learn something from just about everything Frank posts. Al too, for that matter, who might not have formal legal education but puts an impressive amount of primary source research together, especially on court cases and pending legislation. Humility matters. Understanding reality as it differs from ideology matters too. |
January 13, 2013, 02:46 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
If AWB is passed and signed into law I will be moving to Wyoming regardless of financial losses.
__________________
Molon Labe |
January 13, 2013, 02:48 PM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
Nobody wants flying pigs that self convert to chocolate covered bacon when shot?
Pity... Frank and Al are definately our "go-to" guys for this stuff. A moment of thanks offered from old Willie before we resume our normally scheduled rant. Best, Willie . |
January 13, 2013, 02:55 PM | #45 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Ya know Willy, I like pretty much "chocolate-anything." Chocolate covered bacon?... Hm, got any I could try?
|
January 13, 2013, 03:13 PM | #46 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
The next time I see one of those flyin'-pigs 'round these parts I'll have a shot and let you know. I'm headed out into the desert now with a loaded 1860 Army Colt, and hope springs eternal for both flyin' pigs and Wyoming succeeding in succession. Texas too while we're at it. Fur their size flyin'-pigs I'll load up the Walker Colt. Everythin's bigger in Texas.
Willie . |
January 13, 2013, 03:22 PM | #47 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Thanks, guys.
Al really knows his stuff, and I marvel that he has the patience to keep as current as he does. And personally I prefer to keep my chocolate and bacon separate. And if anything is going to cover anything, I'd like my bacon covering a cheeseburger. No flying pigs, but I got a few flying pheasants the week before last.
__________________
"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 |
January 13, 2013, 08:13 PM | #48 |
Member
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
|
Having supreme court justices appointed by the executive branch seems to me to be the source of such skewed perspectives that are outside of the will of the people and a literal interpretation of the constitution. Why aren't federal judges elected? We elect the members of the other branches, why does the branch that most directly interacts with the citizens rely on appointment?
|
January 13, 2013, 09:07 PM | #49 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
January 13, 2013, 11:41 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
So my understanding is, that if a federal AWB was enacted, Wyoming probably could not challenge it directly - because they'd have no standing correct?
But part of their law also includes defending a Wyoming citizen charged under any type of federal ban. So... wouldn't that amount to Wyoming challenging a federal ban, and couldn't or wouldn't they challenge it on 10th Amendment grounds? I'm not saying they'd win, I'm just trying to undertand the possible way it could play out. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|