Posted on 12/29/2013 9:01:26 AM PST by marktwain
Charleston, WV – The West Virginia Citizens Defense League has filed for an injunction against the City of Charleston in the Kanawha County Circuit Court. Charleston has continued to enforce multiple city ordinances which are in clear violation of state law governing Home Rule cities, made effective July 1 of this year. Under the state law, Charleston’s firearms ordinances are rendered null and void as a condition of participation in the Home Rule Pilot Program.
“The WVCDL is not seeking financial damages; only injunctive relief” said WVCDL President, Keith Morgan. “Charleston is operating in clear violation of state law by continuing to operate their unconstitutional gun registry, and enforcing other city ordinances in blatant opposition of the will of the West Virginia Legislature and the people of West Virginia. Mayor Jones is not above the law. This needs to stop.”
The court filing is shown below.
(Excerpt) Read more at firearmspolicy.org ...
While I support the second amendment, I also support the right of local people to organize their own communities in the way they see fit.
The same tactic being used by the WVCDL could be used by those that oppose laws against public profanity or obscenity. Can a local community ban public use of the "F" word, for example? What about the sale of pornography in certain places? What about nude dancing?
I personally have no objection to each community deciding for itself what should or should not be permitted. If the people of a community prefer it to be a loose and rough place, that's fine with me. But they also have a right to choose the character of their immediate surroundings.
Call it "town rights" or "city rights".
Local governments do not have the power to violate your civil rights. How would you like it if your town decided to abrogate the 3rd or 8th Amendments?
That’s true...and if one chooses to own a firearm that would be in violation of a city ordnance - then don’t move there...
There are places in Charleston - especially the westside - that are overrun by drugs and criminals and it borders right next to an historic part where families attempt to raise their children in safety - where owning a firearm would be a first defense among the lawlessness...
/johnny
The problem with each city, township, county, fire district etc making their own rules about firearms is that the citizen that travels from one location to another and through these different locations is then subject to these laws. Colorado was like that so that it became impossible to travel without violating some ordnance.
The city and county of Denver was notorious for inflicting their laws on non-residents and by doing so, convict them of the Denver law violation and thus strip the right to own firearms from non-residents.
This lead to the citizens of the state creating one set of laws that apply to everyone and prohibit cities from creating additional restrictions. We did allow cities to restrict firearms on their property (with appropriate signs) such as city hall etc.
No you don't support the 2nd Amendment. In fact, you don't support any of the US Constitution. Your way of thinking supports "mob rule". - whatever the majority deems acceptable. BTW, we don't live in a democracy - we live in a republic. Big difference.
Governments don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights.
You're entirely correct, JRandomFreeper, and I thank you for mentioning that fact, which ought to be obvious to one and all, but isn't. Government has powers and authorities, all of which are granted to it by us, the people.
I predict the day will come when government will bitterly rue the day it declared its independence from us, the people.
You know your society is circling the drain when a need is felt to legislate morality.
Not going to call the kitties, but are you sure you are on the right website? If you are, may I suggest boning up on the Second Amendment and the Constitution in general? Hint: local rule does not extend to or excuse trampling on people’s God given and Constitutionally protected rights. Also, patchwork restrictions become a legal minefield for people exercising said rights.
I suppose I just want to live in a nice place for once.
Is it so wrong for me and my neighbors to get together and agree that certain things just won't be permitted where we live?
I'm not suggesting the same rules for everyone everywhere. I'm just suggesting that local people should get to decide for themselves how their community will operate.
You'd let my wife and I to decide what should or should not be permitted in our house and on our property that we own together, right? Why is it anything-goes after I walk out the door? Can't I get together with my neighbors and agree on the rules governing the property we own together through our local government?
Private property is a form of local rule and property lines create a patchwork of rules, too, but I don't think we should give up private property rights.
The advocacy for private property is the acknowledgement that different rules and local control are often appropriate.
And I'm getting tired of know-nothings telling me to learn a little about the constitution.
Listen, the constitution when it was first written placed few restrictions on the power of the states. There was nothing in the constitution that said states had to allow free speech or free press or the right to bear arms. Even after being amended with the Bill of Rights, the 9th and 10th amendments made it clear that powers not given to the federal government were reserved to the states and people. That includes restricting rights.
Now many states understood rightly the need for free speech and freedom of religion, so they included these rights in their own state constitutions. But their inclusion proves that it was understood by the people of the states that the federal constitution did not restrict their own state governments.
It wasn't until passage of the 14th amendment that these rights were extended to the people of all states. Even then it was unclear what rights were involved. The supreme court even developed the doctrine of selective incorporation to try and sort it all out.
Now you say that local government can't regulate arms (even to form a local militia, perhaps). How will you get this restriction removed? Outside authority. Big government from afar. You want big government to come into a community and tell it how to run things. Are you sure YOU'RE on the right site?
The city and county of Denver was notorious for inflicting their laws on non-residents and by doing so, convict them of the Denver law violation and thus strip the right to own firearms from non-residents.
This lead to the citizens of the state creating one set of laws that apply to everyone and prohibit cities from creating additional restrictions. We did allow cities to restrict firearms on their property (with appropriate signs) such as city hall etc.
Very interesting response. Thank you.
It seems to me what is public and private are a bit relative when talking about local/state/federal rules.
The city hall seems naturally to belong to the people of the city. The city hall then is private relative to the whole state and public relative to the citizens of the community. But roads (certainly state roads) are seen as public relative to the citizens of the whole state. What Colorado has done is to acknowledge local ownership and control of certain places, but state ownership of roads used by everyone of the state.
I can see how this approach might help straighten out all the conflicts over church/state separation. Local communities could place religious displays on town property, but government funded religious displays on state or federal property would be prohibited.
Or a town parade on main street might not allow what are considered obscene displays, but a march on a state road or federal highway must be allowed on the basis of free speech.
Of course you can. Your neighbors are a microcosm of your (our) culture. If we must rely on the state to manage our culture, all is lost. That is the point I’m trying to make and the point our founders made when they admitted that the only way our form of government would work was if our culture was moral.
No town has the right to crap on the constitution, first amendment or second. Period.
Just damn TOL! Have y’all seen this ‘fixture’ of FR?
Hi, houeto! Nice to see you.
No. This is the first time I’ve seen this person. I’m not sure he or she is on the right site.
We aren’t here to chat, but rather to discuss heavy political and governmental issues that affect all our lives.
Even his or her handle trivializes Free Republic.
Communities need certain rules to remain viable, just like FreeRepublic. The moderators don't crap on the constitution when they delete messages that contain excessive profanity. They're trying to sustain a community.
The same thing applies to other sorts of communities.
The wisdom of the founders was understanding that communities need rules and so states had much power, but communities also need to make their own rules, so the federal government had little power. Citizens of some states could not restrict the speech of citizens in other states or disarm the citizens of other states through the federal government.
That works fine when states are small, Rhode Island, for example. It doesn't work for larger states that have the size of entire nations with many groups that have different ideas about how their communities should be run.
That's why I propose town rights. If rule making is at the local level, it can be more responsive to the needs of the people. I'm not proposing state or federal restrictions at all, but they're coming and leftists will push for them if we can't find some other way to handle some of these problems.
And consider how towns cities might improve. I was reading about a town proposed by a Catholic with a church in the town center. The desire that pornography not be sold in nearby stores was expressed and immediately the ACLU swooped in threatening legal action.
Now personally I don't really care if pornography is sold and consumed, but the idea of this town was that it might be a place safe from the vulgarity of the rest of the country. Is it so wrong for people to want to live in such a place? People are running away from cities because they have anything-goes attitudes. And many of those cities are a wreck. Now here is a man that wants to create a little refuge and he's threatened for it in the name of free speech rights.
It's no wonder people are running away from these places and taking their families with them. It's no wonder they're not incorporating new towns and cities. What's the point if the local people will have no control?
Free Republic is a privately owned website and can’t be compared to a town.
You make some interesting points but the US constitution trumps all, localities shouldn’t get to interpret it to their liking in the name of local control.
If people actually lived there, would it change anything? Would it still be private?
And is it possible to privatize a town? What would really change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.