|
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 21, 2018, 09:49 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
My point is just because something is popular and being talked about does not constitute a necessity to pass a law either way . That’s where our activist judges come in and actually create a problem that will have worked it’s self out through natural cultural change . Like I said earlier some people just want what they want and they wanted now and don’t care what effect it will have on the rest of the country as a whole as long as they get what they want now . Obviously that’s my opinion YMMV . When I say YMMV I'm speaking to the board and not anyone specifically . I only used the quote as a pretext to my over all point in this post .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; March 22, 2018 at 04:46 PM. |
|
March 22, 2018, 03:12 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
I think the argument lacked a solid foundation to begin with the more I consider it and it only went downhill as I tried to elaborate it. |
|
March 24, 2018, 12:24 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
IMO, if states and localities could very much decide to ignore Federal gun law if states and localities can decide to ignore Federal immigration law. It isn't right, but if the government will not stop selective ignoring of the law in one way, then others will start arguing for the same with other laws they don't like and see as too extreme. As for certain Federal gun laws, I would say that the idea that states have to obey all of those based on the principle of rule of law is not true. To the contrary, I would say (again, in principle) that states and localities have a right and even a duty to flat-out ignore such laws and undermine Federal enforcement of such as much as they can. But it depends on the law.
A federal assault weapons ban IMO, given the arbitrary and capricious, not to mention outright ridiculous and absurd, substance of an assault weapons ban, would fall under state and local governments not having to abide by it (in principle). Such bans constitute a blatant violation and infringement on people's rights and there is a limit to how far the law can go before people have a right to disobey it. For example, if the government decided to say blacks could be slaves again, I would say that states and localities have a right and duty to disobey such laws, along with ordinary citizens. Similarly, just arbitrarily making a bunch of law-abiding citizens into criminals because they possess a type of gun that is fictional and arbitrarily-defined, also falls into that realm. A Supreme Court decision in the 1930s said that women could be forcibly sterilized by the government. Today it is considered one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history, but at the time, it was the Law of the Land. That said, every person at the time I would say had a moral right to disobey said law and work to undermine it. |
March 24, 2018, 12:51 AM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In contrast to your alternate universe things work in the real world work as I outlined in post 8. Folks can spend their time and energy chasing chimera and fantastical notions about how things should be, but at the end of the day they will find themselves nowhere and perhaps even more vexed than they started out to be. Or folks can spend their time and energy trying to understand reality and how to work within its constraints. That's how whatever can be accomplished will get accomplished.
__________________
"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 24, 2018, 03:35 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
1) In the real world, what the "The Law" says is not always relevant. "The Law" can say that a certain behavior or action is illegal, but that doesn't make the action wrong or mean that a person violating the law to perform the action is not still on solid moral footing. "The Law" is ultimately a product of Man. In the Real World, sometimes the law is so at odds with reality, that a person is forced to violate it and it is absurd to expect them to adhere to it. 2) To be clear, I do not believe that a person has a moral right to just flout any law that they think is wrong. The vast majority of laws passed, even if you disagree with them, need to be adhered to because otherwise you do not have a society based on law and order and instead it just turns into anarchy. What I am talking about are cases of extreme violations of people's rights. As you say, the existing law is what it is and what I "think" doesn't mean squat as far as the existing law and its enforcement goes. But in terms of being on a moral footing with regards to adhering to it, I believe that if people's fundamental rights are being blatantly violated by the law, that they do have a right and even a duty in certain cases to flout the law outright. Yes, that can come with punishments, and such people have to be willing to deal with that. But it is no different than people who flouted Jim Crow or slavery laws or the forced sterilization (eugenics) laws, or the Alien and Sedition Acts when those were passed (and some people did and were put in prison even though they were blatantly unconstitutional). All were on solid footing morally. An example could be the outright (or near outright) gun bans in certain major cities, such as New York City and Washington, D.C. If someone decides to violate the law and illegally carry a gun on their person because they feel they need it for security while walking alone at night in the city, that person I would say is 100% morally within their rights. Yes, they are technically in violation of the law and yes they will likely be punished if caught, but morally, they are on sound footing and given the circumstances for some people, it is a larger risk to walk unarmed then to walk armed worried about the police. Another example could be New York City and their "gravity knife" laws that have gotten some people in legal trouble for utterly ridiculous reasons. If I was on a jury regarding such an incident, I would vote to let the person off no matter what "The Law" says because of the absurdity of the law and how it violates the person's rights. 3) I disagree with your assertion that "nobody cares" what I think. I think a lot of people actually do care about such things, they just don't have a major public voice to argue it. If for example Congress forced through an assault weapons ban over President Trump's veto, and then he said he will not enforce it due to its extreme violation of people's rights, I would say he is on solid moral footing on that one. Again, for 99.99% of laws, the President would not have the moral authority to pick and choose what to enforce, but for a small .01%, he can refuse to enforce certain ones. Or the National Guard troops in Louisiana who confiscated people's guns after Katrina. They would have been on solid moral footing to have refused the order. Remember the debate during the 2016 campaigns when Trump was saying about torture and the moderator said that people in the government said they would refuse to follow such orders if given? Does "nobody care" what they think? Sometimes a law (or order) can be so egregious that a person is on moral footing to ignore it. |
|
March 24, 2018, 11:43 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
I think logicman makes good points . I don't know if I "care" about it but I do like hearing it .
I found this on another gun forum http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1430211 Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
|
March 24, 2018, 01:08 PM | #32 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What is "justice"? What is moral? Your idea of justice? Your idea of moral What if someone else has a different idea? In The Republic Plato describes Socrates and his students trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to define justice. In Shaw's Major Barbara, Andrew Undershaft (the millionaire maker of cannon) is in conversation with his son, Stephen: Since the dawn of civilization, and probably before, people everywhere have been continually struggling to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong." They are generally unsuccessful, except with regard to the most extreme circumstances. Sure, murder is off the table; but when does killing someone morph from murder to justifiable homicide. We can generally agree that it is wrong to steal the property of another; but how do we punish a man stealing bread to feed his starving child (which is where prosecutorial discretion and juries as the conscience of the community come in). That's where law comes in. While people are struggling unsuccessfully to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", we still need a way to resolve disputes without tearing the fabric of society asunder. We might not all be able to reach agreement on "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", except on occasion at certain crossing points, but in the real world we must still be able to get on with life. Perhaps a true common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong" will come to us in Heaven. But in the meantime we'll need to try to get along as best we can with the tools we have.
__________________
"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 24, 2018, 07:16 PM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
March 24, 2018, 09:21 PM | #34 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, the OP was about the relationship between state law and federal law. This excursion has been off topic and ends now.
__________________
"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, 2018, 04:55 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
March 27, 2018, 04:56 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017...e-rule-of-law/
Quote:
|
|
|
|