Posted on 09/08/2002 9:22:43 PM PDT by doug from upland
The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.
He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.
The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.
Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.
Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.
Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.
Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.
Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.
Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Stanley deliberately violated a local regulation to provoke an arrest that would bring him publicity. He went to court with a defense that was a sure loser so that he could play martyr. Frankly, he didn't give a spit how much damage he was doing to real RTKBA efforts.
That's not the question you asked before.
As for what he did to be arrested -- well, he purposely and with great fanfare violated a Denver firearms ordinance. (I happen to agree with Stanley that the ordinance is wrong.)
After that, Mr. Stanley attempted to make a mockery of the court hearing -- something that works fine in an Ayn Rand novel, but not in real life. His public press releases on the issue cemented the impression that Stanley's a whackjob -- and that's not just my opinion. (Stanley's own words, and those of his pals, made him look far worse those of the Denver press!)
Or is this one of those things where a Right only goes as far as the reigning political party says it does?
You guys simply refuse to understand that in a practical sense the answer to this is a resounding "yes." This goes back to what I said before about "if everybody would just....": you've taken the lofty principle of RKBA and simply expect everybody to abide by it. Stanley's biggest mistake was in thinking that his stunt would impress anybody -- it did not. If anything, he hardened support for the Denver ordinance.
Note that the BOR says that CONGRESS will pass no law restricting.... It says nothing about states or cities enacting such ordinances. So there is a reasonable 10th Amendment case that Denver's ordinance is Constitutional. (Stanley also attempted to use the Colorado Constitution -- but long standing precedent, and the text of the Colorado Constitution, go against his claim.)
I won't blindly defend the R's on the gun control, because I'm aware of their failings. Of course, the elected R's in Colorado tend to act in favor of RKBA, whereas Stanley only postures.
To get elected, he needed the backing of a major political party. His votes are consistant with libertarian philosophy. "By their works, shall ye know them."
ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Do you understand what you said?!?
And by their saliva.
Wouldn't it just be easier if you stood on your tiptoes in front of a mirror to make yourself seem
This is actually a sincere question.
Article IV, Sec 2.
Article VI, "supreme Law of the Land".
Amendments II, IX, X, XIV Sec 1.
My Constitution trumps your court ruling. If it was as you say, how come they didn't pass this one?
Article Thirteen. Proposed 1861; Signed by President Lincoln; Unratified
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
By your reasoning, we HAVE no Rights. There is nothing that cannot be regulated by the all-powerful State.
And still haven't. If you want to be called that all you have to do is go from thread to thread looking for keywords ; libertarian; freedom and the like, and then make posts on them lying about what libertarians believe and what they stand for. Throw in a healthy dose of phony religiosity and advocate the use of force to attain your political goals, and you can be described that way to.
Non sequiturs already?
Stanley didn't care how much damage he was doing to viable RTKBA efforts so he spit on them.
OK. Got you pegged now. This one core example of your thought on this decries the very idea that a person has ANY Rights that cannot be taken away by the Majority. This violates everything "unalienable" Rights is about. Either you do, or you don't. It's black and white because, as recent events prove out, incrementalism will destroy a thing like this whenever the hardline stance is not taken.
This shows an extreme amount of cowardice on your part.
As posted to Roscoe, there are several places in the Constitution that apply it to the States. "Supreme Law of the Land" is pretty damn unambiguous, despite what socialists and tyrants legislating from the judicial bench may have decided with their "emmanations and penumbras".
Stanely had the right of the argument. Denver was wrong to even impose such a limit. How many RKBA threads have you seen on FR that espouse this EXACT viewpoint? That all laws that violate RKBA are un-Constitutional?
And with your opinion that the Constitution does not apply to the States, you show yourself to be an enemy of our Rights. What good is it to have a Federal government, with some of our Rights written into the BOR, if the States can arbitrarily abrogate those Rights?
Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. It also lies at the heart of the difference between Republican and Libertarian.
I am reserving my rights without prejudice by UCC 1-207 and their statute court and the statute that I have violated, must have an injured party, and since there is no injured party, or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under Common Law. This Statue Court made a legal determination that it has the authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which I will call to its attention and I will put him and the court on notice that I will appeal his legal determination, and that if I am damaged by his action, I will sue him under the jurisdiction of the UCC. My recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103-6, which says: "The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. I am instructing you now to add this to my appeal. I am making explicit reservation of my rights at 1-207, and I insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law. If this court will not allow the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land to guide its hand and the Jury instructions that he gave, I am forced to defend with the Statute Jurisdiction/Admiralty jurisdiction that he has forced upon me and which the UNIFORM COMNMERCIAL CODE is the overriding authority for his actions. To say that I am unhappy that I was never advised by the Court regarding this issue, is something that will be addressed in Judge Patterson's Court, and the appeal that I will file after the sentencing.
That's some of Stanley's whack job defense in court.
Is it too late for me to change my postion? :)
Our list? Someone call you that? Or maybe you are saying you are aligned with those who have been? In which case, I will happily include you.
See post 188 to determine if you qualify.
Does Denver have a court and legal system that lies outside the jurisdiction of the US Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land"?
Do you even understand the full implications of what you are advocating? You do realize that using your interpretation, we have no Rights. None! Nothing that cannot be subsumed by the all-powerful State.
Does that sound like a free country to you?
Let's just go back to the old ways of antagonizing each other before the universe implodes!
I'm all for the RKBA. However, I understand that there are people against it -- enough of them to allow the passage of all sorts of gun control legislation. IOW, gun control more or less has "the consent of the governed." It's a plain political fact.
Now suppose that somehow the LP finds itself in a position to do something about it, but finds itself faced with strong opposition. Will the LP simply force its will on the governed? No: instead, it would be forced to acknowledge the meaning of the term, "politics is the art of the possible."
(Of course, the only way the LP would ever be in that position to begin with is if they actually had people voting for them. In which case the point is moot, because "everybody would just....")
Stanely had the right of the argument. Denver was wrong to even impose such a limit.
I agree. However, Stanley's antics did nothing to highlight what was wrong with the ordinance. Indeed, he probably did a better job of demonstrating why the ordinance is a "good" thing. I'll be honest: based on his behavior, I don't trust Rick Stanley to behave responsibly with a gun.
He's nuts.
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.