Posted on 11/05/2006 1:52:17 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
The video you will see on this web site is horrifying. The crimes committed against law-abiding gun owners are beyond comprehension. The arrogance of anti-gun politicians and government officials and their hate of freedom will churn your stomach.
The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. If ONE local mayor or police chief can decide what the Second Amendment means, it opens the door to tyranny—where ANY mayor or police chief can say what the Second Amendment means.
(Excerpt) Read more at givethemback.com ...
I don't know.
If there's a Second Amendment ping list, they should be alterted about this posting.
The city of New Orleans was advocating, last I heard, that they be able to require proof of ownership via the owner providing the serial number and the original receipt for the purchase.
Honestly, I don't think I have any such documentation anywhere in my files for any of the guns I own.
"No DoD soldier or civilian will take part in the forced evacuation of US citizens from their homes. Period. Over!"
The New Orleans Police made up their own rules.
As of the last time I checked the NRA website the guns were still impounded in defiance of a federal judge's order to return them to the owners.
BTW, I posted this same NRA article a few days ago and it didn't get very much response. I hope it is noticed more this time around because we need to make it as widely known as possible how deeply the hatred for the 2nd Amendment and firearms owners runs in the liberal Democrat psyche. If they are ever given a chance with a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress they will make our US gun laws into a virtual nightmare of gun bans and intolerably severe restrictions on every gun not banned just as the liberal UK government has done over there.
I watched the video of them tackling the old lady and was too ill to reply. sorry.
I'm no authority on how this works, but if I'm not mistaken adding the word "BANGLIST" to the list of the thread's keywords automatically pings FReepers who are interested in gun rights issues.
Aside from the outrageous and illegal confiscation there's another lesson to be learned. I went through two of the worst hurricanes we had here in FL (where any law-abiding citizen can possess firearms and we also have right-to-carry) and from my own personal direct experience I can tell you a story illustrating why legal gun possession makes all the difference --- even between life and death.
tell the story
According to a very vocal minority on FR:
The law [the 2nd] is NOT the 'law of the land', and the Constitution's BOR's only applies to the Feds.
Local majorities can indeed decide what the Second Amendment means, even if it opens the door to tyranny...
BTW I read your home page, snd I want to thank you for your military service to our country. God bless you sir, or madam as the case may be.
No, the reason it doesn't get much of a response is there "so what else is new" attitude. Second Amendment activists knew about this when it happened and have been following this from day one.
I still want to applaud anyone who posted this update. It is nice to keep articles and websites like this in front of the public especially just before a very important election.
I'm one of those! Thank you for taking time to post these important threads.
The Federal Justice System should have jumped on this with both feet, had it not been for the NRA the whole stinking mess would have been ignored.
That is why we have state constitutions.
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA PREAMBLE
We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; [emphasis mine]
< snip >
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
< snip >
"Sec. 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
The State Constitutions are not redundant. The RTKBA above applies to the state of Louisiana. It does not apply to the other states nor does it dictate what the feds can and cannot do. I believe powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution nor withheld by it from the states are reserved to the states and the people. It would follow that since the power to confiscate firearms or any other property is not delegated to the federal government, that it is a power reserved to the states or to the people. This is where the state constitution comes in and settles that question to which the the answer should be painfully obvious except to tyrants: no, the state cannot send agents to confiscate arms. Their protection from state agents comes from the state constitution and their protection from federal agents comes from the BOR. Each are the law of the land as it applies to its subjects, respectively. I could be wrong and you may disagree, but this is how I read it. It seems plain as day.
Some would say that the 14th "extends" federal rights to the states so that the prohibition against the feds confiscating guns now "also" prohibits state agents from doing that same thing. Maybe, maybe not. I'd not even like this idea because then after we get comfortable with having the federal constitution protections, it is too easy to forget about state constitution protections, then the politicians can try to prevaricate us out of the federal protections for "national security" reasons. And then where do we turn. I strongly recommend everyone become an expert in the protections of their state constitutions for the day this trick is tried.
The local agents acted unconstitutionally and it is within the jurisdiction of the state to punish the police. What is the punishment for violation of a state constitution? Of course if you have state officials who ignore the state constitution to the degree the feds ignore the federal constitution, you have a big problem. The police are doing their bidding. It is time for a big housecleaning and the voters have to know what to do.
Call me a tinfoiler if you want but I have been following this North American Union development and I do believe that those people intend to replace the authority of the state and federal constitutions with another set of laws that they would have us accept as the law of the land. I don't know what those laws would look like but after that happens we would not have a Louisiana constitution to go running to any more, or a federal constitution, to make our case if we have a grievance against something the North American Union bureaucracy imposes on us. I hope I'm wrong and simply did not put on enough tinfoil.
I'm not at all shocked. A friend showed me what the left was up to re guns around 1980.
Some would say that the 14th "extends" federal rights to the states so that the BOR prohibition against the feds confiscating guns, in this case, and other things in others, now "also" prohibits state agents from doing that same thing. Maybe, maybe not. I do not like this idea because then after we get comfortable with having the federal constitution protect rights that are already protected sufficiently by the state constitutions, it is too easy to forget about state constitution protections and believe that all protection of righs comes from the federal constitution. It becomes that much harder to assert a right guaranteed by a State constitution after the practice has fallen into disuse. It would be then, after the people reflexively invoke BOR rights neglecting by ignorance their state guaranteed rights that the politicians can try to prevaricate us out of the federal protections we have come to rely on, for "national security" reasons. And then where do we turn, after having lost track of the state protections of rights? It wouldn't be easy to rediscover them and get them back. And we would have learned a nasty lesson too late about trusting the fed too much to protect our rights, when the function should never be centralized, but always be distributed and filtered down through the states.
You neglected to bold the two most salient words in the LA Constitution regarding your point. They indicate what the DoI states that rights are not given by any government only protected or infringed upon. And then there is this from the U.S. Constitution...
Article. VI.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
and reiterated in this...
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That is why we have state constitutions. The State Constitutions are not redundant.
Of course they aren't. -- They reinforce the principle that our basic rights cannot be infringed. But States cannot deny those rights protected by the Law of the Land. [see Article VI]
The RTKBA above applies to the state of Louisiana. It does not apply to the other states nor does it dictate what the feds can and cannot do. I believe powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution nor withheld by it from the states are reserved to the states and the people.
Some powers are prohibited to the States by the Constitution. States have no power to ignore any protections of personal liberty in the body or the amendments of the document.
It would follow that since the power to confiscate firearms or any other property is not delegated to the federal government, that it is a power reserved to the states or to the people.
Sure, its quite true that States have the power to reasonably regulate, using due process, the public aspects of owning firearms or any other property, -- however, - confiscating or prohibiting possession violates due process of reasonable law.
Some would say that the 14th "extends" federal rights to the states so that the prohibition against the feds confiscating guns now "also" prohibits state agents from doing that same thing. Maybe, maybe not.
"-- nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; --"
No 'maybes' in that line.
The local agents acted unconstitutionally and it is within the jurisdiction of the state to punish the police. What is the punishment for violation of a state constitution?
You have the option of demanding redress in a federal court.
Of course if you have state officials who ignore the state constitution to the degree the feds ignore the federal constitution, you have a big problem. The police are doing their bidding. It is time for a big housecleaning and the voters have to know what to do.
Agreed.
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.