Unconstitutional gun control laws won't be enforced

[styroe]

Do you or those states remember we had an assault weapons law passed in the 90s and it was not ruled unconstitutional. Even Scalia indicated the federal government was within its rights to enact resonable gun restrictions

In the 90's they didn't have a patriot act. And you say, "what the hell does that have to do with any?" Just about everything, they've taken your privacy with that one, you need your guns now.

I am not some crazy backwoods conservative. I am a suburban liberal. If you think this government doesn't want to control your life at this point, you are fooled, no matter what side you fall on. Still can't believe they keep that Patriot Act going.

And the big issue in this whole Sandy argument is not guns, it never should have been. They should take away some licenses now because the kid drove there. They should ration air because that kid breathed it. Sound foolish? Supposed to. It was a failure of the medical community, not to mention a failure of society (and no its not violent video games either).

Controlling guns is to this problem is like giving a lozenge to a person with throat cancer. Sure its nice cooling sensation would be nice, but ultimately its not going to fix the thing.

In the words of the human torch... "Flame on!"

 

[gothamhunter]

Derp, because conditional control based on type of firearm is infringement... clearly this combination of words and meanings is hard to understand.

Do we have a clear definition on arms? If so would I legally be able to go out and buy/own an RPG or Backpack-Nuke? Honest questions.

Edit - I now see that it is clearly legal to purchase and own an RPG, tank, anti-tank weapons, etc... - that's kind of neat.

I still don't think that limiting purchasable weapons = completely removing the right to bear arms.

 

[Incorruptible]

Do you or those states remember we had an assault weapons law passed in the 90s and it was not ruled unconstitutional. Even Scalia indicated the federal government was within its rights to enact resonable gun restrictions

If your only going to be shilling/defending for obama then you will be ignored from now on

 

[Phanuel]

Do we have a clear definition on arms? If so would I legally be able to go out and buy/own an RPG or Backpack-Nuke? Honest questions.

Edit - I now see that it is clearly legal to purchase and own an RPG, tank, anti-tank weapons, etc... - that's kind of neat.

I still don't think that limiting purchasable weapons = completely removing the right to bear arms.

Infringing, "yer doin' it", stop.

 

[Ausm]

Monovillage is correct.

And I'm really annoyed at being forced to stand up for Incorruptible. (And no, you may not put that in your sig.)

Actually , I am in favor of them both being banned.

 

[Incorruptible]

Actually , I am in favor of them both being banned.

Because I disagree with you? Or maybe its because I speak out against obama and that I believe in freedom?

 

[Ausm]

Because I disagree with you? Or maybe its because I speak out against obama and that I believe in freedom?

Nah, just because your a major Douchenozzle.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree that the supreme court of the United States of America can invalidate any Local, State, or Federal law.

But the fallacy being advanced by Agent11 and similar posters is five fold.

(1) Agent11 has no damn right to speak for SCOTUS or the lower courts. As the process of finally invalidating a given law, especially a Federal law, can take years and years. And is never truly final until SCOTUS itself rules. and even then that finality may be only temporary. Meanwhile, any given recently passed law is valid and legally enforceable.

(2) There are some 10 or so Federal districts, and if a lower district court rules a Local, State, or Federal law is unconstitutional, it only temporarily binds that one given district and not the others. Meanwhile the law is binding and enforceable until its appealed to higher district courts.

(3) Historically, the 2nd amendment was ruled by almost all previous SCOTUS justices as applying only to the States and their right to have their own National guards. Its only very recently under activists judges like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito that the 2'nd Amendment applied to unregulated private citizens. Not to mention all kinds of 1984 stuff that black is white, war is peace, and money is free speech that is Amazing crapola in MHO.

(4) SCOTUS has a long and proud history of reversing itself. Shortly before our civil war, SCOTUS ruled a black man did not have single right a black man should respect, it reversed itself in Brown V Board of education, and countless times before and since. As I suspect we will see a greatly accelerated pace in such SCOTUS reversals because President Obama will have the right of replacement when even one member of the gang of four resigns or dies. As many of those 5-4 decisions will be over ruled by a newer 5-4 majority that is far more rational and in a reversing mood.

(5) The American Constitution is still a living document because it can be Amended by we the people. Its not an easy process, we came very close to passing an equal right amendment for females, but if the NRA stays full on idiotic, that too is possible.

 

[Darwin333]

It's funny how most people try and skip over the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment.

Equally as funny as the people who skip over the fucking comma and then "the rights of the PEOPLE....... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part of the 2nd amendment.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Equally as funny as the people who skip over the fucking comma and then "the rights of the PEOPLE....... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Agent11]

If you are in a position of authority and are obligated to enforce a law you feel is unconstitutional you have every right to refuse and pursue the overturning of that law.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
If the president can refuse to enact legislation he believes is unconstitutional then it would stand to reason anyone put in such a position has a similar responsibility.

The Sheriff upon assuming office swears to uphold the constitution of the united states and the constitution of his state.

1. International law is not higher than US law. (for moonbat)

2. The constitution is the highest law in the US. (for lemon)

 

[exdeath]

Do we have a clear definition on arms? If so would I legally be able to go out and buy/own an RPG or Backpack-Nuke? Honest questions.

Edit - I now see that it is clearly legal to purchase and own an RPG, tank, anti-tank weapons, etc... - that's kind of neat.

I still don't think that limiting purchasable weapons = completely removing the right to bear arms.

It is for the person who can't get one because, for example, they are prohibited from further manufacture.

 

[styroe]

If you are in a position of authority and are obligated to enforce a law you feel is unconstitutional you have every right to refuse and pursue the overturning of that law.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
If the president can refuse to enact legislation he believes is unconstitutional then it would stand to reason anyone put in such a position has a similar responsibility.

The Sheriff upon assuming office swears to uphold the constitution of the united states and the constitution of his state.

1. International law is not higher than US law. (for moonbat)

2. The constitution is the highest law in the US. (for lemon)

The constitution also gives you an out with a rogue government... But most people opt to vote... Personally, I may trade assault rifles for the ability to excise politicians more quickly than waiting for a term to go. Perhaps a nice smart phone app, have him/her out the next day.

 

[Lemon law]

As agent11 who sez, "2. The constitution is the highest law in the US. (for lemon)", agent11 forgets that the US constitution is subject to interpretation.

As agent11 also forgets that US army birther who decided he was not subject to taking lawful orders from his commander and chief. And got tossed out of the military and lost his pension as his just reward instead. And should consider himself damn lucky he is not doing 20 years at hard labor in the military brig at Levenwort.

Earth to agent11, you are not a member of SCOTUS. As you talk like you are in that exclusive 9 member group. Or you could ask Richard Millhouse Nixon or Tom Delay what happens to people who consider themselves above the law.

As for Moonbeam, IMHO, he makes a lot more sense than you do, IMHO.

 

[Agent11]

Here is another bit, a fellow who refused to pay taxes because the found them to be unconstitutional.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1989/sg890118.txt

Note these paragraphs.

b. The evidence showed that as part of his pattern of opposition to
the tax system, petitioner filed a number of civil suits and attended
trials of other tax protesters.

First, in March 1982, petitioner and another American Airlines
employee sued the company and three of its employees to challenge the
withholding of federal taxes from their pay. On October 29, 1982, the
district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the withholding
was proper and observing that the plaintiffs' objections appeared to
be frivolous. J.A. 16-20.

Second, petitioner brought a civil action against the IRS in the
Tax Court in April 1982, claiming that he was not a "taxpayer" or a
"person" for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, that his salary
from American Airlines did not constitute "wages" within the meaning
of the Code, that he did not receive taxable "income" when he
exchanged his labor for wages, that his wages were not taxable because
he did not work for an "employer," that he was not subject to income
tax because he was a sovereign individual, that the income tax does
not apply to individuals because the word "direct" does not appear in
the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that the tax laws are
ineffective because the Sixteenth Amendment contains no enforcement
clause. During the trial of that case in March 1984, the court
specifically told petitioner that each of those arguments was
frivolous, and it noted that several of the arguments, including that
wages are not income, had been consistently rejected in cases across
the country. J.A. 21-31.

Third, a federal district court issued an opinion in March 1984 in
a separate civil action brought by petitioner and four other persons
alleging that wages are not taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment
because the value of their labor is the same as the payment they
receive for it, and that the withholding of taxes from their wages and
payment of those taxes to the government violated the Sixteenth
Amendment. J.A. 31-32, 35-36. The district court dismissed the
action explaining, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' argument that
wages are not income "has repeatedly been held to be without merit."
J.A. 35. See Schaut v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 137, 139 (N.D.
Ill. 1984).

Finally, in a suit against various federal officials, petitioner
again argued that wages are not taxable income and that the
withholding of taxes amounts to an unconstitutional taking of
property. The district court dismissed the action on June 16, 1986.
Noting that "(t)he constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted
pursuant to the Sixteenth Amendment has long been established," the
court found petitioner's positions frivolous and imposed sanctions
totalling $11,500 against him for bringing the action in bad faith.
Pet. App. 2a; J.A. 37-38. In imposing sanctions, the court observed
that "(t)here is no good faith basis for (petitioner's) arguments" and
that petitioner had unsuccessfully raised essentially the same
arguments in the previous civil action that the district court had
decided in March 1984. J.A. 38-39. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit
found petitioner's abuse of the system to be "egregious" and fined
petitioner $1500 for taking a frivolous appeal. Cheek v. Doe, 828
F.2d 395 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 (1987). /3/

The evidence also showed that petitioner had attended at least two
criminal trials of other persons charged with similar tax offenses,
one in December 1982 and one thereafter. Pet. App. 2a; Tr. 465-470,
494-496, 1367-1368. Petitioner admitted on cross-examination in this
case that at the first of those trials, "(b)ased on the Department of
Justice's interpretation, I learned that I probably should file an
income tax (sic)." Tr. 1367. Petitioner further admitted that he
heard the jury instructions at the second of those trials, but when
asked whether he had "learned what the law was" as a result, he
stated: "No, I did not. I learned what Judge Carroll considered the
law to be." Ibid.


In this case, because the text and judicial construction of the
Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution conclusively refute the
view that wages are not income, and because the courts have uniformly
found petitioner's other constitutional objections to the income tax
to be frivolous, his adamant refusal to pay taxes and file returns was
wholly "unreasonable and ill founded" and therefore "willful" under
Murdock. /16/ The district court therefore was not required by
Murdock to instruct the jury that it must acquit petitioner if it
found that he nevertheless subjectively believed that wages are not
income or that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional on this
or other grounds. It follows that the district court did not err in
instructing the jury that those beliefs are "not objectively
reasonable and cannot serve as the basis for a good faith
misunderstanding of the law defense."

The court of appeals was clearly correct in holding that the legal
arguments petitioner raised in his defense to the charges under 26
U.S.C. 7201 and 7203 were not objectively reasonable. In fact, as the
courts in petitioner's various civil actions repeatedly informed him,
those arguments are utterly frivolous. Moreover, it is well
established that a belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional does
not furnish a defense.

Note that it was not stated that he did not have standing to refute the constitutionality itself, but rather that he was frivolous in his claims as there was already precedence against him.
Now this was a criminal tax case, and honestly not a very good example as applicable to this issue, but I think it shows how a constitutional argument that is invalid is argued against, and why.

 

[styroe]

Here is another bit, a fellow who refused to pay taxes because the found them to be unconstitutional.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1989/sg890118.txt

Note these paragraphs.

In this case, because the text and judicial construction of the
Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution conclusively refute the
view that wages are not income, and because the courts have uniformly
found petitioner's other constitutional objections to the income tax
to be frivolous, his adamant refusal to pay taxes and file returns was
wholly "unreasonable and ill founded" and therefore "willful" under
Murdock. /16/ The district court therefore was not required by
Murdock to instruct the jury that it must acquit petitioner if it
found that he nevertheless subjectively believed that wages are not
income or that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional on this
or other grounds. It follows that the district court did not err in
instructing the jury that those beliefs are "not objectively
reasonable and cannot serve as the basis for a good faith
misunderstanding of the law defense."

The court of appeals was clearly correct in holding that the legal
arguments petitioner raised in his defense to the charges under 26
U.S.C. 7201 and 7203 were not objectively reasonable. In fact, as the
courts in petitioner's various civil actions repeatedly informed him,
those arguments are utterly frivolous. Moreover, it is well
established that a belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional does
not furnish a defense.

Note that it was not stated that he did not have standing to refute the constitutionality itself, but rather that he was frivolous in his claims as there was already precedence against him.
Now this was a criminal tax case, and honestly not a very good example as applicable to this issue, but I think it shows how a constitutional argument that is invalid is argued against, and why.

He only needed to get in front of the right jury... bad lawyering if you ask me.

"Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794), was an early United States Supreme Court case where the presiding judge of the Court instructed the jury, in part, that a jury has a right to judge the law as well as the facts. This case is often cited as precedent by proponents of jury nullification.[1][2]"

 

[Agent11]

Lemon there is no comparing a sheriff refusing to enforce a law he feels violates the constitution he swore to uphold and some stupid birther in the army who refuses to recognize the president as commander in chief because he does not recognize him as a citizen.

To even attempt to equate the two requires a suspension of logic that is alarming.

 

[sourn]

LOL at the idiots trying say the supreme court is the end all be all. Guess what it's not!

The people are. It doesn't matter what the government/supreme court has to say if the people are willing to go against it. That's why we have the constitution, that's why we have the 2nd amendment.

Just because sometime is a law doesn't make it right. At the end of the day if the people are willing to go against it is all that matters.

While I don't like the OP in most of the crap he writes this is legit.

 

[Moonbeam]

LOL at the idiots trying say the supreme court is the end all be all. Guess what it's not!

The people are. It doesn't matter what the government/supreme court has to say if the people are willing to go against it. That's why we have the constitution, that's why we have the 2nd amendment.

Just because sometime is a law doesn't make it right. At the end of the day if the people are willing to go against it is all that matters.

While I don't like the OP in most of the crap he writes this is legit.

I think that for a large portion of America's like yourself, fruit loops are the ultimate power.

 

[irishScott]

Indeed. They only seem tor ead what they wish to read. Perhaps a refresh of the text is in order:



Advocating unregulated gunlaw..is actually against the 2nd amendment. Who would have thought.

And lets lookup the definition of militia:


You could actually ban all guns in the US and still comply with the 2nd amendment. The national guard is the militia.

No, the national guard is the national guard. A militia is what happened in many neighborhoods during the Katrina aftermath, when neither national guard nor police forces were functioning.

Namely, neighbors who had guns came together and secured their neighborhoods. I've heard more than one account where they deterred looters by simply putting a few guys with rifles in some chairs at the neighborhood entrance. Bunch of thugs came by in a car, saw the guards, and kept on driving.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No, the national guard is the national guard. A militia is what happened in many neighborhoods during the Katrina aftermath, when neither national guard nor police forces were functioning.

Namely, neighbors who had guns came together and secured their neighborhoods. I've heard more than one account where they deterred looters by simply putting a few guys with rifles in some chairs at the neighborhood entrance. Bunch of thugs came by in a car, saw the guards, and kept on driving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

 

[irishScott]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

Yes, it is a state-funded militia. That does not make it the militia. There is no "the militia". A militia is two or more regular citizens employed in a lawful paramilitary fashion. Nothing more.

If my friend and I decided to start patrolling the streets with our weapons, we'd be a militia under the law. And given how often my friend and I practice, a fairly well-regulated one.

 

[Incorruptible]

LOL at the idiots trying say the supreme court is the end all be all. Guess what it's not!

The people are. It doesn't matter what the government/supreme court has to say if the people are willing to go against it. That's why we have the constitution, that's why we have the 2nd amendment.

Just because sometime is a law doesn't make it right. At the end of the day if the people are willing to go against it is all that matters.

While I don't like the OP in most of the crap he writes this is legit.

All of the stuff I write is not "crap" its just that people dont understand but I am glad to see you understand that this is legit.

No, the national guard is the national guard. A militia is what happened in many neighborhoods during the Katrina aftermath, when neither national guard nor police forces were functioning.

Namely, neighbors who had guns came together and secured their neighborhoods. I've heard more than one account where they deterred looters by simply putting a few guys with rifles in some chairs at the neighborhood entrance. Bunch of thugs came by in a car, saw the guards, and kept on driving.

Exactly, The police arent always there so what are people suppose to do? Let themselves become victims?

Do people not remember the 1992 LA riots and how the Koreans were targeted and then banded together with their guns to defend themselves

 

[zsdersw]

It is ridiculous to say that one must wait for a court to rule on something before a person in a position of responsibility makes a personal judgment on the constitutionality of a law he would have to enforce. It is his duty to not enforce a law he feels is unconstitutional.

Yes, which is what many conservatives fail to understand when they whine about Obama not defending DOMA.

 

[Darwin333]

No, the national guard is the national guard. A militia is what happened in many neighborhoods during the Katrina aftermath, when neither national guard nor police forces were functioning.

Namely, neighbors who had guns came together and secured their neighborhoods. I've heard more than one account where they deterred looters by simply putting a few guys with rifles in some chairs at the neighborhood entrance. Bunch of thugs came by in a car, saw the guards, and kept on driving.

I am personally one of those exact stories. My neighbors and I put a guy at each of the two entrances to the neighborhood visibly armed with long guns. Plenty of thugs started coming our way but the moment they saw the shotgun (usually, few of the guys had hunting rifles) the entire group, despite outmanning the lone guy guarding the neighborhood 10 fold most of the time as well as outarming the lone guard who knows how many times, every single solitary time turned around and went elsewhere. No shots were ever fired, the simple fact that they would have to go through someone who was willing to send lead there way as well deterred them. Other neighborhoods within blocks of us who had no one visibly armed outside in the neighborhood didn't fair nearly as well.