DENVER VS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Stanley for U.S. Senate Campaign ^ | December 15, 2001 - Bill of Rights Day | N/A

[Verax]

I don't own a handgun.

[VA Advogado]

I understand the context. It's called straw man.

Trying out new vocabulary words I see. Have you gotten to rock head yet?

[Jeff Head]

No Bravo Sierra here, just a modest proposal. Read it for yourself:

Firearms Restoration Act

I wish it were proposed in the House and Senate and came to the floor for a vote so they could all go on record specifically regarding the 2nd amendment ... not as if though the majority of them haven't already.

[Roscoe]

It's not tyrranical, it's simply self-defense.

Libertarianism's capacity for sophistry is limitless.

[VA Advogado]

Rock head? I don't understand.

Thank you for your honesty.

[takenoprisoner]

What's this, 'Agree with us or we'll come for you'? Hmm, sounds awfully tyrranical. Or is that something only the government can be; Libertarian mobs cannot be tyrranical, by definition?

Traitors to freedom have been known to be hanged and shot in the past. I suggest you stick to chemistry. To be safe, all you have to do is abide by the US Constitution and the freedoms and liberties associated with it. Any prob with that?

[takenoprisoner]

any more than I defend the Constitution

You're not generally required to unless you join the armed forces, or become elected to public office as example. Though it is generally acceptable for an American to believe in and honor it. Regardless, enjoy your free ride.

[BlackbirdSST]

You operate on a very flawed theory, as do most here.
Then the upside would have to be, most here think you operate from a very flawed theory. The clowns you so respectfully refer to as "Legislators", could give a rats a$$ about anything you or I bring to them, without first testing the political wind. They are without honor, why should I or any other citizen expect any defference from them? Take a lesson from the left (shouldn't have far to reference), they get their wheels greased by getting in everyones face. If this guy chooses to get in Denver's face, more power to him. Blackbird.

[VA Advogado]

why should I or any other citizen expect any defference from them?

I'm not saying you should. You are clearly a dishonorable citizen. One of those 'in' the wagon like Phil Gramm used to say, that the rest of us have to carry. An america hater. But this legislature is part of your government. It responds if you choose to engage it. You choose not to. You lose.

[BlackbirdSST]

why should I or any other citizen expect any defference from them? I'm not saying you should. You are clearly a dishonorable citizen. One of those 'in' the wagon like Phil Gramm used to say, that the rest of us have to carry. An america hater. But this legislature is part of your government. It responds if you choose to engage it. You choose not to. You lose. What, are you 12 years old? How do you make the leap to me being clearly dishonorable? Since Phil Gramm hasn't held a non govt job for the better part of 40-50 years, I should look to him for what's honorable. Don't think so lackey. If you don't think in my 40+ years of being on this earth I haven't had opprtunity to petition "my Govt" then you've exposed yourself to be more of a maroon than I had you pegged for. If there is excess load in the wagon, it's not from me or mine slick, never been in the wagon. You are so full of crap opinion it's pathetic. Come back with some more mental giant stuff. Blackbird.

[supercat]

Here's the only "Gun Legislation" I am willing to support: The Firearms Restoration Act

I would add a couple of clarifications:

1. Per the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which permits enslavement of convicted criminals, states may forbid or restrict firearm ownership of convicted felons, either indefinitely or for a term of years which may exceed the prison term, if such restriction is imposed as part of the sentence.
2. Per Congress' power to ensure that full faith and credit is given to state judicial actions, any restriction imposed by a state court persuant to (1) shall be effective throughout all of the United States for a period of seven years from the person's release from prison. Possession of a firearm in any state other than the one where the restriction was imposed shall be a federal offense punishable by a fine and prison term of up to $25,000 and five years, but not more than would have been enforced in the state where the restriction was imposed.

Given the sections of the Constitution cited, I think those "gun control" restrictions would fully pass constitutional muster.

[supercat]

Scalia, speaking to a small group of Thomas More members at my law school said, "The Constitution is a nice puff-piece, but it ain't the law."

Did he misspeak, or did you misquote?

[supercat]

If the judicial system follows the law, he will lose. If it follows the Constitution, he will win. It is important here to make the point that it is the law which is unconstitutional. That's what these two guys are trying to demonstrate by going to jail.

An unconstitutional statute [or act, ordinance, or regulation] is not law; it is void from the moment of inception, not merely from the moment it is struck down.

The ordinance in this case is unconstitutional; it is therefore not a law. To use the term "law" to describe such an ordinance is to grant it legitimacy it does not rightly possess.

[supercat]

The second amendment does not have any exceptions for concealed carry, nor for carry in cities, or most anywhere.

This is IMHO debatable, and it's really best not to push the issue. Given that some of the state constitutions at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified had RKBA provisions that explicitly stated that concealed carry was not protected, I see no alternative but to accept one of three things:

1. The Constitution was intended to void state restrictions on concealed carry.
2. The Constitution was intended to apply to the federal government only, thus not conflicting with state restriction of concealed carry.
3. The Constitution was intended to require that all governments allow a practical means of carrying weapons, but not necessarily to allow them to be concealed [though if open carry is forbidden de jure or de facto, concealed carry must then be permitted].

While many here would prefer (1), I really don't think that's consistent with the federal-state balance struck on other issues. The question then becomes whether (2) or (3) is a better interpretation of original intent. Given that there is nothing in the text of the Second Amendment which restricts its application to the federal government, I think (3) is the more plausible interpretation.

To be sure, I think the Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" clause renders suspect many types of "may issue" concealed-carry permit systems. I do not think there would necessarily be any constitutional problem, however, with a state law which forbid concealed carry by anyone and everyone, including police, politicians, and bodyguards. On the other hand, I doubt such a law would get passed.

[supercat]

He will win....

IANAL, but IMHO that depends whether he attempted to raise the following two factual issues:

1. He was carrying the firearm for self-defense.
2. His pistol was of a type suitable for use in a well-functioning militia.

Precedent requires (1) for state-constitution challenges and (2) for federal constitution challenges. To be sure, these should not normally be difficult facts to show, and it's fine (actually good) if the judge deliberately prevented the lawyer from introducing them. Nonetheless, attempting to produce them may be a key requirement for securing a remand.

When seeking a remand after a conviction, it is necessary to show not only that mistakes (or worse) were made, but that they may have materially affected the outcome of the trial. Since precedent in state and federal court requires the above facts for constitutional RKBA defenses, if the defendant didn't attempt to raise them the appeals court might hold that even a fair judge and jury would not have accepted that defense.

[Iron Eagle]

Oh my!!! I did misquote!! He said "the declaration of Independence is a nice puff piece, but it's not the law."

My apologies.

Good catch!