The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 13, 2017, 09:59 AM   #151
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 18,734
I've deleted a gratuitous comment about folks with disabilities. I caution against going that route.

Also, we have discussed and scholars have also discussed, that the rights in the BOR are not unlimited. It might be a good idea to search on such issues before blanket statements.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 11:22 AM   #152
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
Where in the 2A does it in any way even hint the gov or a court has authority to regulate guns.
The text of the amendment doesn't permit any infringement (interestingly, it isn't stated as a mere prohibition on Congress).

I am sympathetic to a broad application of the language, but that doesn't end the inquiry.

The 1st Am. contains the language that "Congress shall make no laws..." pertaining to the subject of that amendment, yet Congress makes laws restricting campaign speech; some survive challenge while some don't. The commerce clause restricts the matters Congress can regulate very plainly...interstate commerce, but Congress regulates matters of intrastate commerce.

One aspect of our modified common law system is that judicial resolutions serve as precedent for subsequent controversies. I don't agree with a number of those precedents because they are poorly reasoned and the reasoning may have been concocted primarily to buttress a result people preferred for extra-constitutional reasons, but they are still precedents.

To know the range of your likely successful options, you want to know not just what the COTUS language indicates, but also what the precedent on the point indicates. That doesn't even mean that the precedent is necessarily binding, but it is very likely to restrict the direction of future changes.

Sometimes you will read people arguing that "the right isn't unlimited" as an implicit assertion that the amendment doesn't prohibit any limits. That's an over-reach that merits correction.

Arguing that the NFA violates the 2d Am. has lots of intellectual merit from several different directions. That argument also faces two currently insurmountable obstacles:

1. It has survived constitutional challenge. Yes, we all know the oddities of Miller.

2. For reasons that are not fully rational, many people want fully automatic firearms tightly regulated. That's a political obstacle you would need before making any Sup Ct reversal effective. If you didn't first overcome the political obstacle, the Sup Ct could strike the entire NFA, and you'd very soon see a wave of democrat and some republican aspirant trying to enhance their political fortunes by being seen as leaders to amend the COTUS on that and other points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
So how is it in anyway moral or legal for the gov to infringe on pee existing human rights that existed before the nation or it's gov or courts existed.
I think I answered the legal question. The moral question is more difficult.

A key part of the problem is that our government is to some degree representative. Republican and federal structure can slow public passions, the senate can cool them, a president can veto them if he has the votes, and the Sup Ct can strike a law that survives all that. However, even the Sup Ct ultimately succumbs to popular notions and is indirectly representative of the population.

That constitutional obstacle course isn't a guaranty that your neighbors won't be unwise. It just slows them down.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 05:30 PM   #153
SonOfScubaDiver
Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 67
Ghost, I think what is being argued here, that I don't think you are quite grasping, is that the 2A doesn't exist in some kind of legal vacuum on its own. It exists as part of a much larger document that grants SCOTUS the final say in all issues pertaining to any parts of the document. Well, at least that's how I'm understanding the points being made.
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 07:35 PM   #154
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
I get it. Some believe that because SCOTUS unconstitutionally began ruling unconstitutional regulations as constitutional.
And the longer they have done so without being stopped, somehow makes it OK to keep doing it.

It doesn't.
Just because I slap a person in the face repeatedly and get by with it doesn't make it right or mean that person will always take it.

There is no ruling SCOTUS has made on the 2A where they pointed to any part of constitution that gave them the authority to uphold the things they have that infringe on 2A.

That the right is not unlimited is no where in the COTUS. It was simply pulled out of thin air.

Precedence is not law. It's simply a tradition used so gov and courts can gradually do what all gov and all courts try to do. Eventually gain all power to themselves.


The Supreme Court is a huge part of why the nation is divided, already declared political revolt in the last election, and gets closer to an outright revolt with every gov over reach. And every time scotus legislates from the bench or over steps it's constitutional bounds.

I'm going to back out of this now.

Last edited by Ghost1958; October 13, 2017 at 07:43 PM.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 07:56 PM   #155
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,921
Quote:
Some believe that because SCOTUS unconstitutionally began ruling unconstitutional regulations as constitutional.
Reality is that the SCOTUS is the sole official authority on constitutionality. And whether or not we agree with their rulings, the Constitution explicitly gives them the authority to do what they do.
Quote:
Just because I slap a person in the face repeatedly and get by with it doesn't make it right or mean that person will always take it.

There is no ruling SCOTUS has made on the 2A where they pointed to any part of constitution that gave them the authority to uphold the things they have that infringe on 2A.

That the right is not unlimited is no where in the COTUS. It was simply pulled out of thin air.

Precedence is not law. It's simply a tradition used so gov and courts can gradually do what all gov and all courts try to do. Eventually gain all power to themselves.


The Supreme Court is a huge part of why the nation is divided, already declared political revolt in the last election, and gets closer to an outright revolt with every gov over reach. And every time scotus legislates from the bench or over steps it's constitutional bounds.
Some of this makes sense at some level, but the real problem is that it is based on a flawed understanding of the authority granted to SCOTUS by the Constitution.

Agree or disagree, when SCOTUS rules, it determines constitutionality. Not because they always get it right. Not because I think it's true. Not because you think it's true. Because that's how it is--because the Constitution gives the SCOTUS that power.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 08:31 PM   #156
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...So how is it in anyway moral or legal for the gov to infringe on pee existing human rights that existed before the nation or it's gov or courts existed.
That's another, and a philosophical, discussion. But as long as we're discussing the law or politics, things are as they are.

While our system offers opportunities and ways to change the law, what the rules are, and how things are done, until such things actually get changed in the real world we must learn to deal with what we have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...Precedence is not law....
First, the word is "precedent." The plural is "precedents."

Second, in a way it is the law. Law, i. e., statutes enacted by legislative bodies, constitutions and charters adopted by political entities to govern the operations of those entities, and past judicial opinions, is essentially a tool used by courts to decide the outcome of a dispute or disagreement. So when a court writes an opinion deciding a matter in contention, it is explaining how it applied the law to the facts and circumstances in order to decide the outcome.

Precedent has been fundamental to our legal system and for some 500 years to the Common Law of England, on which our system is based. The doctrine of stare decisis (to stand by the thing decided), or precedent, means that legal principles and interpretations used by a court to decide a matter will be used by other courts within the same system to decide similar matter.

It is founded on the notion that similar matters should be decided in consistent ways. Do you really think it would be satisfactory for any issue decided one way at one time to be decided in a completely different way another time? Because we have the doctrine of stare decisis how courts have decided past cases will give us clues as to how courts are likely to decide future, similar cases.

Of course sometimes when precedent and the law as applied by a court don't achieve a satisfactory result, a legislature can change the law -- checks and balances at work. Recently there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.
__________________
"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 October 15, 2017, 09:29 AM   #157
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
Reality is that the SCOTUS is the sole official authority on constitutionality. And whether or not we agree with their rulings, the Constitution explicitly gives them the authority to do what they do.Some of this makes sense at some level, but the real problem is that it is based on a flawed understanding of the authority granted to SCOTUS by the Constitution.

Agree or disagree, when SCOTUS rules, it determines constitutionality. Not because they always get it right. Not because I think it's true. Not because you think it's true. Because that's how it is--because the Constitution gives the SCOTUS that power.
in all sincerity a guestion.

What is being proposed here by a couple of highly educated folks is that we fought a revolution for nothing?

That in the end, we are not really a representative republic but instead a nation under rule of a monarchy of 9 lawyers in black robes sitting on the SCOTUS.?
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 12:09 PM   #158
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,260
Quote:
...So how is it in anyway moral or legal for the gov to infringe on pre existing human rights that existed before the nation or it's gov or courts existed.
There are simple answers to this, and then there is the added complications of the real world, beyond pure political idealism.

The legal one is easiest. Governments can legally do anything they say is legal. Pay attention to this point. It's rather important.

In the US, we have, through the court system, the ability to challenge the presumption of any government action's legality. There is a system, which ultimately ends with a ruling by the Supreme Court. And, whatever that ruling is, is the LAW, until/unless a future court reverses the decision.

And that HAS happened. Precedents can, and have been overturned. It's rare, but it has happened.

As to "moral" that is much more complex, and involves value judgments not necessarily specifically covered in law. BOTH side of every issue consider their point of view moral and "right". Our system uses the courts as the arena to decide which side is correct, within the framework of existing law.

This is another key point, "within the framework of existing law".

Intent, and ethics (morality, if you wish) don't matter to the law. ALL that matters is whether or not an action (or object) violates existing law.

This is a key point in the bump-fire controversy. Despite people looking at them today, and saying that they are a clear and obvious attempt to evade the law on machine guns, the ATF (under Obama) made the correct decision about them. They do not violate existing law, and were not, therefore a regulated item under the NFA 34.

The fact is that existing law defines machinegun in a certain way, and does NOT reference how fast one can fire the weapon, which is at odds with what the ban the bumpstock people want. What they want, does not change existing law. They need to change the law, in order to get what they want.

And, they are trying. And trying greedily. They aren't introducing bills to just ban/regulate bump-fire stocks, their bills include their entire wish list of gun control restrictions, including the bump-fire. I believe that will be their downfall.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

This case provides an excellent example of how our system works, and where it fails. Frank did his usual excellent job of showing the essential points of law, but a more background is needed to understand the how, and why of what happened.
In simplest terms the govt used the argument of eminent domain to seize private property.

It is a long established principle, and allows the govt to take private property for the greater public good. Traditionally this meant important, necessary things like building a dam, a needed military installation, or running the freeway over your house....(and, you ARE compensated for that, though the fairness of the compensation is often disputable...)

What happened in Kelo was that the "greater public good" claimed as justification for the seizure was TAX REVENUE!

The govt took property so they could allow a commercial development to be built there (something the owner prohibited), and that commercial development (I think it was to be a mini mall, but that's not important) would generate more tax revenue to the govt., than the land was doing under its owner, so they felt they were justified taking it, for the "greater public good".

It was unethical (immoral, if you prefer), but it was LEGAL within existing law, and so the court ruled. Such is our system. The response was for many states (42 is a pretty clear majority) to craft NEW laws, with language specifically addressing what happened to Kelo, to prevent it from happening again. And these new laws are now the existing law, and since they are existing law, any repetition of the matter would be easily ruled not just morally reprehensible, but legally wrong (illegal).

This is also our system, our way to fix flaws, when we find them.

Quote:
What is being proposed here by a couple of highly educated folks is that we fought a revolution for nothing?

That in the end, we are not really a representative republic but instead a nation under rule of a monarchy of 9 lawyers in black robes sitting on the SCOTUS.?
I don't see it that way, at all.

We fought a revolution to free ourselves from British rule. We won.

We have been arguing about what is the best way to rule ourselves, ever since.

We adopted a system (our Constitution) early on, and while not perfect, has worked pretty well for a long time now.

IF we are "a nation under the rule of 9 lawyers in black robes", then it is because we, the people have failed in our duty to ourselves.

The Supreme Court exists as the check on the actions of both other branches of government. They ensure that the rest of the government does not exceed their Constitutional authority.

IF we, the people elected legislators who were more concerned with doing the best possible job for the people, all the people, and not concerned with doing the job that pleases enough people to get themselves re-elected, they wouldn't pass laws that go to far, and the Supreme Court would have little to do. Likewise, if "bad laws" weren't passed, the Executive wouldn't have them to justify unconstitutional actions.

Perhaps the Founder's erred believing the people would have the wisdom to elect responsible representatives. Certainly they felt leaving the decision in the hands of the people was the best course.

Washington set a standard that sadly few try to meet, today. He might have been able to become king. He almost certainly could have been "president for life", but he CHOSE to serve a couple terms, and then retired to private life.

This was something many people felt those who served in government should do. Do the best job they could, for a short time, and then go back to private life.

Today, because of the actions of the people we elected, we are where we are, and despite the fact that many of us don't like some (or any) of it, we are where we are because of ourselves, and representative democracy.

I think we are better off than the people living under some hereditary monarchies, theocracies, communism, socialism, or fascism.

Our system doesn't always work in our favor but we have a better chance of having that happen than people living under other systems, and because that still exists, we didn't have a revolution for "nothing".
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 12:42 PM   #159
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 18,734
Quote:
So how is it in anyway moral or legal for the gov to infringe on pre existing human rights that existed before the nation or it's gov or courts existed.
Can we stop being so naive? 'Legal' assume some governing body that will judge and decide on an issue. Where is the body that decides that? A society or culture or ruling class decides on what your rights are and the various mechanisms in such decide the instantiation of them.

For us, the SCOTUS takes the 'rights' of the Constitution and judges how they apply - influenced by the politics, social and philosophical state of the nation at that time.

Slavery was seen as moral and legal across the world and in our culture by many. Women not voting - similar.

No celestial beings removed folks some slavery in recent times, nor gave women the right to vote.

One might think the right to own fully automatic weapons is something that celestial beings decided was a basic right and the SCOTUS violates their divine laws. Good luck with that.

A modern and legitimate analysis of natural rights realizes that such are just expressions of society, culture and power at the time. Also, such predilections are filtered through evolutionary principles that shapes our basic behaviors.

God given rights - African-Americans (preaches pro slavery), Husbands raping wives (Quite OK with some preachers), Women voting (Horrors - no natural right for them).

Some cultures even don't think self-defense is a natural right. One viewpoint is that if you kill an attacker you remove the attacker's chance at redemption in this world. Thus, you should not kill the person.

There's a lot more thought into 'rights' than cliches about owning a bump stock.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 12:49 PM   #160
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
I'll leave this thread with the words of those much more educated on the power they intended for the SCOTUS to have.

And it was not that Supreme Court was to be the all powerful atrocity it is now.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton

If what is being said by 3 or 4 here is accepted as true then we are doomed to live from now on under a tyranny of a handful of lawyers on the SCOTUS and have lost our liberty long ago.

Thanks for the discussion truly.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 01:47 PM   #161
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,856
Quote:
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.
Yes, I believe that is the same idea Frank is trying to explain.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 01:57 PM   #162
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,369
The BATFE should have never been allowed to have any say whatsoever about bump fire rifle stocks. Or make any law by regulation. They're unelected civil servants.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 02:32 PM   #163
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,921
1. The Madison quote is true but not relevant. The SCOTUS does not have "all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary".

2. The Jefferson quote is specifically talking about SCOTUS usurping power from the executive branch, not about their general power to determine the constitutionality of laws set before them for review by the judicial process. It would be instructive for you to read the entire letter from which that quote was taken--or at least the entire paragraph because it has a lot of good information. http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/f...-04-01-02-0348 It clearly states that each branch has the power to determine constitutionality and act in its own sphere based on that determination with the powers afforded it, but that each branch has limited power over the other branches.

"...the judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment..." Clearly Jefferson says that they are afforded the right to determine constitutionality and act on that determination.

"...but the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution..." Just as clearly, Jefferson indicates that the Executive is also bound to make determinations and to act on his determination of constitutionality.

"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." But here's where the problem arises. When they operate in their own sphere of action they are ok, it's when they also start to try to control the other branches of the government that the problem arises.

Furthermore, it clearly addresses your contention that constitutional rights may not be regulated at all. Jefferson clearly spells out the intent of the framers to allow some reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights, albeit by the state legislatures more than by Congress.

"...we deny that Congress have a right to controul the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so."

3. I'm not sure what you intended to convey by including the Hamilton quote. It clearly states that the courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws, a point which seems exactly counter to your arguments.
Quote:
What is being proposed here by a couple of highly educated folks is that we fought a revolution for nothing?
Nobody is "proposing" anything. Stating how things are is not a proposal or endorsement, it's simply an observation of fact.
Quote:
That in the end, we are not really a representative republic but instead a nation under rule of a monarchy of 9 lawyers in black robes sitting on the SCOTUS?
That's a stretch. SCOTUS can not create law, it can only rule on the legality/constitutionality of existing laws created by the legislature or of actions performed by others. Nor does it have the powers of the Executive branch.

It may or may not be true that it has more power than the framers intended, but it's a long way from being a monarchy and the U.S. is obviously still a representative republic.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 02:49 PM   #164
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,324
Ghost - I apologize if I missed it in this thread, but what is your proposed solution to prevent being "doomed to live from now on under a tyranny of a handful of lawyers on the SCOTUS?"
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 03:10 PM   #165
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,154
Quote:
The BATFE should have never been allowed to have any say whatsoever about bump fire rifle stocks.
They have authority to issue opinions, and in this case, they were correct. The term machine gun has a specific legal definition, to wit:

Quote:
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger​
Bump stocks simply do not fit that definition. This brings us to an interesting point about the NRA's response: they want the ATF to issue a ruling rather than supporting legislation.

But, as I've mentioned, the ATF can't rule that bump stocks are machine guns, since it's still one shot per trigger pull. The only way to outlaw them is through legislation.

Everybody chew on that for a second. The NRA has taken the focus off legislation (which can ban them) and put it on the ATF (who can't ban them). There's more going on here, especially considering that Marion Hammer has involved herself in this.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 04:49 PM   #166
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Since I was asked. And I had not stated it.

We are too far down the rabbit hole for voting to return us to the point the BOR is honored and limitations placed on it by the COTUS are abided by by all branches of gov.

SCOTUS legislates from the bench and has for decades. It has no such authority. Obama care was rewritten by the court so it could pass as just an example.

Congress passes laws clearly violating the BOR and know they do when they pass them.
The create agencies and empower non elected officials to create regulations that are then treated as laws.

My solution is that all branches of gov be forced to honor the bor and COTUS as written. Not as interpreted by 9 lawyers depending on which political leaning the most of them have.

There are only two ways left to accomplish that.
A article 5 constitutional convention.

Or wide spread non compliance and jury nullification as was done over Prohibition.

Actually there are three ways but nobody wants things to sour to that point.

Once that has been accomplished put the death penalty in place for any elected official attempting to step out of the bounds clearly laid out in the BOR
as it is written. No court interpreting or just plain making it up as they go. Which they do now.
And death penalty if they try.

We are not the country we were founded to be.
We live under a Fed gov that had hilariously overstepped it's authority in all three branches for more than a century.
Voting has clearly been shown inadequate to remedy that. Fortunately the founders put in place other methods of bring the Fed monster to heel.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 05:14 PM   #167
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,154
Quote:
A article 5 constitutional convention.
I have nightmares about that very idea. Rewriting the Constitution at this point would be an utter disaster.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 06:11 PM   #168
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...My solution is that all branches of gov be forced to honor the bor and COTUS as written....
How is it that you don't recognize that you're implying by that statement that you know the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that you know what the Bill of Rights and Constitution really mean as written, and that others don't. Aren't there some of our fellow citizens who believe that branches of government are honoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as written? So I guess you insist that even though there is disagreement, you're correct?

It seems sometimes that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.
__________________
"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; October 15, 2017 at 07:19 PM. Reason: correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 06:50 PM   #169
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
How is it that you don't recognize that you're implying by that statement that you know the true mean of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that you know what the Bill of Rights and Constitution really mean as written, and that others don't. Aren't there some of our fellow citizens who believe that branches of government are honoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as written? So I guess you insist that even though there is disagreement, you're correct?

It seems sometimes that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.
Just sticking to the 2A for simplicity sake.

I can read a clear one sentence statement.
And know what it says without a legal degree.

I also know that for to be regulations put on the rtkaba politicians and judges have to pull phrases like "not unlimited, public welfare, etc "out of thin air for they certainly are not written in the 2A.

I'm no smarter than anyone else. They can read the BOR also and all of them are plainly written in clear easy to understand English.

Everyone else knows what they say as well.

It's not until politicians and judges with agendas that are prohibited by the BOR that the meaning of plainly listed God given or natural rights as you prefer get twisted into pretzels that are infringement. When those same politicians and judges are in positions of power like the Congress and the scotus we get the agenda approved watered down version of the BOR it was never intended to be.

All due respect I'll bow out now and not respond to in this thread anymore.
I'm far from alone in my beliefs in this nation.
But I'll not change your opinion that any law the SCOTUS upholds bar none are legitimate laws.

And you certainly will not change mine that laws that violate the COTUS are null and void as if they were never written.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

Regardless what a monarchy of a handful of judges say.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 07:17 PM   #170
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,921
Quote:
Since I was asked. And I had not stated it.

We are too far down the rabbit hole for voting to return us to the point the BOR is honored and ...
...
...overstepped it's authority in all three branches for more than a century.
Voting has clearly been shown inadequate to remedy that. Fortunately the founders put in place other methods of bring the Fed monster to heel.
How does any of that relate to my point by point rebuttal of your previous claims using YOUR OWN SOURCES as citations?
Quote:
I can read a clear one sentence statement. And know what it says...
1. The fact that you included the Hamilton quote in one of your last comments, a quote which clearly contradicts many of your claims, calls the accuracy of this assertion into question.

2. The problem is that context is often required for full understanding. And you don't get context if you only focus on single sentences and ignore the context as you did with the Jefferson quote.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 07:17 PM   #171
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
Just sticking to the 2A for simplicity sake.

I can read a clear one sentence statement.
And know what it says without a legal degree....
That's what you think, but dating back to the beginnings of our republic there have been a lot of folks who have disagreed with your interpretation. Scalia's opinion in Heller outlines the long history of the regulation of the RKBA.

So you're sticking with "tyranny is bad unless it's my tyranny."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...And you certainly will not change mine that laws that violate the COTUS are null and void as if they were never written.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)....
I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind about that, because it's correct. But you don't understand who it is who has the final say as to whether a law is repugnant to the Constitution. Here's a hint; it's not you. The Founding Fathers decided that the final say on the question would the Supreme Court's.

Indeed that very concept comes from the Supreme Court as part of the process of judicial review you so disdain. While you disclaim the legitimacy of Marbury, you are happy enough attempt to shanghai it to support your arguments. So let's look at Marbury v. Madison (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)):
  • 1 Cranch 137, at 177:
    Quote:
    ...an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void....
  • at 177 -- 178:
    Quote:
    ...If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

    It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

    So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.....
  • at 180:
    Quote:
    ...a law repugnant to the constitution is void...

Of course, it's still the province of the courts, and not you, to decide if a law is repugnant to the Constitution.
__________________
"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 October 16, 2017, 02:00 AM   #172
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,260
Quote:
My solution is that all branches of gov be forced to honor the bor and COTUS as written. Not as interpreted by 9 lawyers depending on which political leaning the most of them have.
Not interpreted by 9 lawyers, but interpreted by you, as only you know the true path???

Quote:
Once that has been accomplished put the death penalty in place for any elected official attempting to step out of the bounds clearly laid out in the BOR
as it is written. No court interpreting or just plain making it up as they go. Which they do now.
And death penalty if they try.
OK, NOW we come down to it. Thanks for finally being upfront about it. Anyone disagreeing with your interpretation, dies. That's quite plain.

Your solution is giving YOU the power of life and death over anyone who YOU say is stepping out of line. Would there be a trial for the accused? or just your pronouncement that they have stepped out of line, so off with their heads??

I don't see this as significantly different from other dictators, despots or radical imams. Only that your holy book is the US Constitution "as written", and anyone going outside your definition of the true faith shall be put to death.

It appears our ability to have a rational conversation based in reality just ended.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 03:28 AM   #173
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
It appears our ability to have a rational conversation based in reality just ended.
For that reason alone, closed.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 06:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.19341 seconds with 9 queries