Posted on 02/12/2011 7:07:08 AM PST by marktwain
The first concrete attempt to undo city gun laws has hit the congressional hopper: Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have introduced the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act," which is largely the same as a measure that failed to gain support in the previous, Democratic-controlled Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
So if law enforcement will ignore the Constitution why would they abide by a simple law?
Any law needs to require DC to recognize all carry permits issued by the states so those of us who legally carry may do so when we vist DC.
We need a Federal law making it an act of treason, punishable by death by firing squad, to attempt to introduce any new legislation that infringes on the Second Amendment.
>So if law enforcement will ignore the Constitution why would they abide by a simple law?<
could you explain that please?
I don’t understand your statement.
was there something in that write up where law enforcement were not following the laws?
“was there something in that write up where law enforcement were not following the laws?”
We already have a 2nd amendment but govt officials at all levels ignore it. This includes law enforcement.
So why would a law allowing firearm ownership be any different?
>We already have a 2nd amendment but govt officials at all levels ignore it. This includes law enforcement.<
What a statement. so you think that cops should just enforce the laws that they think apply?
“What a statement. so you think that cops should just enforce the laws that they think apply?”
Perhaps try to read my posts. Cops already ignore the 2nd amendment in varying degrees across the country. They’ve done it in DC for 30+ years.
Please explain how a simple little law would make any difference.
I did read your post.
Your suggesting that by following laws that are on the books they are ignoring the 2nd.
You believe that they should NOT follow the other laws, only the second.
So apparently it is okay to ignore laws as long as they are the ones you want ignored.
“Your suggesting that by following laws that are on the books they are ignoring the 2nd.”
No I’m saying they did not follow the law. The 2nd amendment supersedes the local anti-gun laws.
Yeah I believe they should follow the Constitution. Amazing concept that its the Supreme LAW of the land.
Your anger is misplaced is what I am saying. Law enforcement should not selectively enforce laws. By doing so they open a can of worms you really don’t want opened, NOBODY does.
If the states make a law the enforcement officers have no decision in what to enforce or what not to enforce.
Same with the federal government. If a law is passed, enforcement enforces it. They do not make it.
Now that is an amazing concept eh?
“Law enforcement should not selectively enforce laws. “
They have for decades since DC first passed its ban. The 2nd amendment has been in place for more than 200 years and yet cops enforce subordinate laws.
>The 2nd amendment has been in place for more than 200 years and yet cops enforce subordinate laws.<
they are enforcing laws that have been made. Not subordinate ones. Your really stretching here.
The laws were made by representatives, they are lawful. They may need to be repealed, but that does not mean that they are not enforceable.
Your still advocating selective enforcement no matter how you crack it up and whatever spin you try to put on it. Advocating it is asking for trouble, but you can’t see that because your being stubborn.
“they are enforcing laws that have been made. Not subordinate ones. Your really stretching here.”
So what does “supreme law of the land” mean in your universe?
You are the one that is ignoring the Constitutionally protected rights.
Simply because the progressive treat their own oath as meaningless, doesn't mean that everyone should.
You are wrong if you think that following the oath would result in chaos or anarchy.
The Constitution is a pretty simple document to read and understand.
>So what is the purpose of police to take an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States? If they only rely on the Courts to tell them what the Constitution means, that oath is meaningless.<
They take an oath to enforce all laws, not just the constitution. State as well.
By far I am not ignoring the constitution. Nor am I foolish enough to believe that the other laws mean nothing.
All the laws have to be obeyed, not just the ones you think are the most important ones.
See this is the part you are not getting.
These laws are made by legislature - the constitution allows for that. The law that says the right of the people to keep and ear arms shall not be infringed is not all inclusive.
It was left up to the state how that law would be applied.
Your being selective and blaming the police for your inability to see what you do not want to see.
No where in the constitution does it say these are the only laws of the land. It was meant to be built upon by a consensus of the people. each state having the right to amend these laws to suit it’s populace.
Now weather I agree with it or not, that is how it is. And all your complaining won’t change that. What will change that is your legislature if they have enough pressure to take away all the regulations on guns.
Arizona seems to be doing a good job at this point.
But it is not the responsibility, purview or up to the enforcement officers “ideas” of what laws he or she will apply. You talk as if they have a choice in what laws can be enforced. News flash .. they don’t.
If cops acted the way you believe that they should, they would be in jail themselves.
The oath that I took as a peace officer did not state anything about enforcing all laws. We know that some laws are unconstitutional.
If an officer cannot be trusted to understand the Constitution, which is a relatively simple document, how can he be entrusted to understand 2,000 page laws that are often deliberately murky?
If he cannot understand the written law, how is an ordinary citizen supposed to do so?
“These laws are made by legislature - the constitution allows for that”
Oh I get it. I also get that you are ignoring that those other laws do not rewrite the Constitution. Its really very very simple. The Constitution puts controls on the govt in order to protect certain God given rights.
It doesn’t matter what those other laws are, if they infringe on those God given rights they are unconstitutional.
The justice system and law enforcement have ignored the Constitution in a number of areas. Your excuses are a perfect example. What else will you excuse when times get tough?
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.