|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 24, 2013, 09:32 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2013
Posts: 194
|
The questions you are asking Come and Take it get into some extremely sticky legal terms. By the Constitution all state laws are subject to federal law. Thus when a state law is in conflict with a federal law the fed over rules the state. However the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme federal law of this country. Therefore a law that is passed by a state that is in agreement with the Constitution should be the winner if a federal law that is not in agreement with our founding document comes into dispute with that state regulation.
The problem here is that not everyone agrees about what is in conflict with the constitution and we have no road map as to how to interpret this document. It is in the hands of the Supreme Court to do so and there is nothing binding them to reading it a certain way or even basing their rulings on the document. What they say it means is what it means legally. Regardless of what a passage of any part of the Constitution obviously says it is still subject to the Courts rulings on the matter. And of course when you are talking about legal matters there is never such a thing as cut and dried. It is always a murky swamp with loopholes to exploit. If you really want a best answer to these questions a lawyer who specializes in such matters would be the best resource as no one else is truly able to speak on such matters with any authority due to the fact that we cannot truly understand the ins and outs of it all. Great questions by the way. |
March 25, 2013, 09:55 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
That is not my opinion. It is theirs. Read their writings. The founders wrote about their beliefs at great length and in great detail. You should also look up the word "Infringed". There's not much to debate. The government cannot restrict our right to keep and bear arms in any way. As a matter of fact the founders thought everyone able to carry a firearm should do so at all times. That's the militia part. Read the federalist papers.
Thanks to them we also get to have an opinion. Yours is always welcome.Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; March 25, 2013 at 10:12 AM. |
March 25, 2013, 10:13 AM | #28 | |
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 |
|
March 25, 2013, 11:14 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
"On every question of the constitution let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed." Thomas Jefferson
"The language of the constitution cannot be interpreted safety except by reference to the common law and to the British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted." Chief Justice Taft. Today despite this clear evidence, gun control proponents attempt to "squeeze" the text of the second amendment. The second amendment is not negotiable. Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
March 25, 2013, 11:27 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2013
Posts: 194
|
If I might interject Mr Ettin and Mr Boomer. You are both right. Boomer the founding fathers were very clear about their intentions with the bill of rights, and such. However Frank Ettin you are correct the courts have the right to make rulings on what those documents mean.
Therefore you are both right. |
March 25, 2013, 11:56 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
It is the people's job to judge whether the courts are ruling justly. That's the reason for the second amendment. To protect ourselves from a corrupt government. The second amendment is the teeth of our right. The second amendment is absolute. That is it's point. "Infringed." It's not just our right but our duty to protest unjust rulings.
Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
March 25, 2013, 12:25 PM | #32 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
Stepping away from utility and examining the theory of government, if "the people" are at liberty to "overrule" a court, is there any real judicial authority? If "the people" are free to overrule judicial authority, is Congress free to overrule the decision in Heller? Quote:
A great way to undermine a viable analysis is to overstate it. Your statements above overreaches in two specific ways. First, you use the word "lie"to describe an activity that is other than a clear deception involving a simple misstatement. Commerce clause jurisprudence is not the same as "You look great. Have you been working out?" Or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". Second, while it is likely that you and I do not concur with the current state of commerce clause jurisprudence, in fact, the Supreme Court does not get there by ignoring the interstate component. The problem with the current state of commerce clause jurisprudence came with the decision in Wickard, and the development of a doctrine by which the Supreme Court would refuse to strike laws that did not regulate interstate commerce only, but extended to matters that could arguably influence interstate commerce remotely. That kind of interpretation is that it has the effect (as opposed to the rationale) of changing the meaning of the words "interstate commerce" to "interstate commerce and not interstate commerce". That is not a lie in any simple sense, but it does change the effective meaning of the words in the Constitution. The problem there is that once one usurps the authority to change the meaning of the words used in laws, he destroys their character as laws.. Arguably that kind of reinterpretation is more damaging than a single, simple and discreet "lie".
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; March 25, 2013 at 12:32 PM. |
||
March 25, 2013, 12:27 PM | #33 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
So what's your plan for fixing that?
__________________
"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 |
|
March 25, 2013, 12:46 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
Any ruling that infringes our rights to keep and bare arms is unjustified. If the courts, congress, or the president do not heed our peaceful protests we are duty bound to protest with force. The founders said so enthusiastically and unanimously.
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
March 25, 2013, 12:52 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
At the risk of repeating myself, what purpose will be served by these acts of force in which you are duty bound to engage?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
March 25, 2013, 01:00 PM | #36 | |
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 |
|
March 25, 2013, 01:04 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
My only plans are peaceful but if the people of our great nation stand together they constitute the single largest armed force in the history of mankind. Greater in number than all the armies of all the nation's on earth. In my opinion you futile is going the wrong way. That was in fact the spirit of the second amendment.
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
March 25, 2013, 01:17 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently. This however is not sacrosanct. The U.S. Supreme Court has overruled prior Supreme Court rulings many times:
Chisholm v. Georgia Adler v. Board of Education Pace v. Alabama Wolf v. Colorado Dred Scott v. Sandford And on, and on. Don't believe for an instant that the courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller can't or won't be overruled by a future supreme court seeded with Obama appointees. |
March 25, 2013, 01:33 PM | #39 | |
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 |
|
March 25, 2013, 02:08 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
This is the issue. If a case came up claiming that the supreme court may be able to override all other rulings we would read the constitution.
Quote:
If and individual has the right to own a gun than the right cannot be infringed or else every other mention using the word shall must be brought into question. |
|
March 25, 2013, 07:59 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
I don't claim to know every little "loop hole". My previous quote about "squeezing" the text applies to most loop holes. I understand how our government was designed to work, but that's not how it works today in my opinion. Our government has become dysfunctional. We are told we need to compromise. Today compromises means how many of our rights are we willing to give up. I believe we should compromise by taking ten or twenty thousand gun laws off the books that don't meet constitutional muster.
About the civil war comment. If that were to happen today in the world's present economic state that would probably be the worst event in human history. The other side of our world is a powder keg. If the US fell into civil war Europe would probably collapse into civil unrest. The blow to the world's economy would be catastrophic. Without nato Israel's would likely be attacked by it's surrounding countries. As war spread east you now have world war three. I surely don't relish even part of that happening. Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
March 25, 2013, 10:54 PM | #42 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
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 |
||
March 26, 2013, 01:45 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Nullification of gun laws
Quote:
Of these you'll find that the soap box is far superior as a change agent than the others. But you must be consistent and clear in the message, and don't bother preaching to the choir. Be consummately professional and impeccably prepared facing the lions. There's no one here to convert. And ranting like some of the flamboyant faces does no good either. |
|
March 26, 2013, 12:00 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
The cartridge box is always the last option.
I never said Israel was a nato member. We are. If the US and Europe fall into anarchy there is no nato. Nato countries are the only ones that would ever come to Israel's add. If I'm preaching to the choir I'll stop. "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at a the tempting moment." Benjamin Franklin Good day grents. Remember freedom cannot be given. Freedom must be taken.
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
|
|