Posted on 10/25/2011 10:06:48 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Word....
Heh. I understand it fine. When a judge can read precedent for the opposite of what it says, the judge is the problem. See chronic misapplication of Presser and Miller.
-- You don't have to like them, agree with them, or accept them as just, but you do have to follow them, or face the penalty for violating them, or leave this society. --
I have to follow them because the government has superior power of force, not because the government has the benefit of "moral right" by adhering to its own agreement with the people.
-- I don't want 250,000,000 individuals deciding what laws they will obey and which they will not. --
Well, the reality is many people don't follow the law, and don't respect (that is, hold as "proper") large swaths of it. They disobey, and take their chances.
-- Are all gun laws unconstitutional? --
I think no, but I think you find that if SCOTUS says they are, then they are.
-- Do you want a person convicted of child abuse to be able to follow your child to school with a concealed weapon? --
Of course I don't like creeps. I also don't suppose that the law prevents people from being creeps. Punish wrongdoing - but I'd not punish a person for being armed, unless they use that threat of force as a means to obtain what they aren't entitled to.
-- The answer to a disagreement with a law is to attempt to educate 51% of the people to agree with you. It is not in disobedience. --
The answer isn't either/or. Laws can be nullified by various means.
-- If you can't get people to agree to vote to change it, don't blame the law; blame yourself. --
I have nothing to do with Scalia's decision to circumvent precedent with illogic.
I'm a conservative while you speak like a Tory.
Good thing they didn't drill any holes in the receivers, since each hole can be considered a seperate machinegun, per BATFE declaration. Hey, look: The air around us is just FILLED with unregistered machineguns. And if you breathe in any air, you're in possession....
That's just an argument for superiority of the state, period.
Exactly. An act of law does not ipso facto legitimize tyranny. The authority of the state is founded on the consent of the governed.
It is an absurdity that the will of the majority is omnipotent and omniscient. If the majority of the people in a society believe a distinctly identifiable minority should be enslaved simply because the majority wants to have people as property, is that belief legitimized by passing a law? This is not an edge case. Similar arguments can be made against state sanctioned monopoly, for example.
Here in California people peacefully and legally protested arbitrary gun control laws with legal open carry. Rather than address the point of the protest, the state legislature enacted a law to outlaw open carry because of the police effort required to verify the protesters were following the letter of the law. What do you think of a law enacted to outlaw a freedom because of the cost of presuming guilt is too high?
Then to which minority do you give such powers?
But what do you do when people disobey a law you do like?
To live in a world where we live by laws inconsistant with the wills of the governed is a dictatorship. That’s why Obamacare, or at least its creators, will not survice the 2012 General Election.
When people live in a world where each decides what laws they will follow, that is anarchy.
Except that the BATFE, the agency in charge of such infractions, has no authority to do so because their original authority came from congress’s taxation-of-everything authority.
Now that the BATFE has nothing to do with collecting tax-revenue, as it is wholly under the DOJ and not the Treasury, they have no authority to deny the manufacture of machine-guns.
Legal precedent:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm
Furthermore, even using the bastardized definition of Ex Post Facto [laws] that the USSC has for more than a century (ie that only criminal laws may violate the ex post facto prohibition), the GCA is plainly contra-constitutional as it made every ex-felon (those with felonies, but had served their sentence) “prohibited persons” thereby altering their sentence.
>The Body Politic does; through the Courts.
You may be interested in this then:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm
>Of course the government is going to throw the book at these fellows - and they will be barred from possession of guns and ammunition. That makes the government happy.
That’s one of the things that is most terrifying about ObamaCare, it makes people who do not have `qualifying` plans into felons; now consider that in the light of unemployment (and time-to-job) rates. Even completely aside from the government being able to arbitrarily change what plans `qualify` we could see a LOT of people put into the “prohibited person” list.
>>It is an absurdity that the will of the majority is omnipotent and omniscient.
>
>Then to which minority do you give such powers?
And there is the problem: it should not be based on a minority/majority outlook, but upon an Constitutional/contra-Constitutional one.
As example, in New Mexico there is a law which prohibits firearms on university campuses (the wording makes even possession w/i student housing prohibited), NMSA 30-7-2.4
( http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll/nmsa1978/4cf/f1eb/f3a3/f3cb?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0 )
The State Constitution however prohibits such law with Art II, Sec 6:
“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Now, it is obvious that the statute violates the Constitution, if it is indeed a valid prohibition (college-grounds) then the exception should be amended into the Constitution, just as it is for concealed weapons; any prohibition of arms within a person’s home by the state, is by the sited section, illegitimate regardless of the existence of laws or even legal precedence precisely because it is contrary to the State’s own Constitution.
>To live in a world where we live by laws inconsistant with the wills of the governed is a dictatorship.
Here’s an inconsistency for you: Fast & Furious was a violation of arms treaty w/ Mexico and, aside that, an act of war.
It was committed via official departments (unless you care to argue that BATFE, FBI, and DEA are not official) and, if the perpetrators thereof are not punished, it makes the Congress’s position to declare war of no value (as these other agencies can always provoke a war)... that is to say that these agencies can, given time & backing (that is, freedom from punishment), commit the country to a position where you may be put into mortal danger... and you have utterly no say in the matter.
Thanks for some cool headed information, as opposed to the usual “to the baricades....”
Did U.S. v. Rock Island, et al go to SCOTUS?
One of my favorites is the issue of minors needing, in the opinion of medical experts, whole blood, or at least packed red blood cells, against the explicit and announced wishes of parents.
Because the parents are of a certain faith, does that automatically make the child, let's say a one year old, a willing follower of the same practices, prohibitions and beliefs? Who makes the final decision in such matters? Many would say the courts. But what if there is no time to get a ruling and an order of the court?
I covered such a story once, back in the 80s in Texas. All seven docs on duty in the hospital agreed the 2 year old needed blood after a bad bus accident. Parents refused. No judge available.
Hospital gave kid blood (He was leaking so badly it took about 15 units to keep his BP up. Plasma or Ringers would have done no good.)
Later, parents wanted criminal charges against hospital, docs, etc. Judge refused, saying, “What do you want to charge them with, assault with intent to heal?”
What about civil law? There is a problem in franchising contracts. A contract should always be an agreement negotiated between the parties, not some boilerplate contract of adhesion. Although accepted for years, consumerist courts are beginning to say it gives too much power unfairly to one side. such as in a cable TV contract where there is no alternative, such as another cable or satellite service available.
Some states prohibit standard boilerplate franchising contracts.
But as much as there is a desire to have ALL contracts fairly negotiated between the parties, there is the issue of discrimination. Some courts have said all contracts for the same good and services (or franchises) must be the same to as to not discriminate against one set of second parties over another set.
Ergo, some states REQUIRE all franchising contracts to be the same for each franchise owner.
Each side has its perfectly valid legal points. That's where the courts come in, and they usually, but certainly not always, get it right.
>Thanks for some cool headed information, as opposed to the usual “to the baricades....”
>
>Did U.S. v. Rock Island, et al go to SCOTUS?
No; the ATF *REFUSED* to take it to appeals because they feared the judge’s reasoning was/is that well done... if they would have lost at the next level of appeals then (IIRC) whatever states are in the circuit-court containing IL would be out of their control/jurisdiction.
In the time since then the ATF has been moved to the DOJ, and therefore the reasoning now applies to ALL regulations that the ATF enforces regarding guns (rather than just machineguns).
It depends. I don't have the power of the state behind me, but I can call on civil remedies, and borrow the force of the state that way.
Let me turn that around and ask what you do when a court disobeys the law? What if the government is practicing a little bit of anarchy of its own? What if the case says one thing, and the court says the case says the opposite?
I think the answer in that case boils down to superior brute force, in which case, the state always wins. They don;t have to be right, they just have to be more powerful.
My point sort of lies in that area - when the government is dishonest, then it does, and it darn well deserves to lose the respect and support of the people. Whatever respect it gets, it gets because it has superior force.
-- To live in a world where we live by laws inconsistent with the wills of the governed is a dictatorship. --
Not necessarily. It's all shades of gray, never (rarely) all or nothing. Our federal government is damn far afield of its charter, unanswerable in many ways, but not in all ways.
-- When people live in a world where each decides what laws they will follow, that is anarchy. --
Assuming they behave that way with regard to ALL laws, and ALL social norms, sure. But that too is not the case. The people tend to have overwhelming support for laws against murder, rape, property crimes, thuggishness, fraud, etc.
We're in a society with a very complex tapestry of overlapping jurisdictions. If the federal government were to be gone in a flash, we'd still have the local police, the state governments, etc. Absence of anarchy in the "Mad Max" style, at any rate.
How do you infer I made such an argument? The illegitimate assertion of authority by a minority is not legitimized by virtue of being a minority either.
You argue we must absolutely obey the law no matter how awful it is and if we can not convince a majority to change it we must blame only ourselves for failing. You implied the very existence of civilization requires such blind obedience.
I find fault in your argument as we must accept at least one absurdity, the absurdity being a majority is automatically omnipotent and omniscient by virtue of majority. If the majority passed a law tomorrow declaring you an outlaw and required you be shot on sight, would that obligate you to submit? Would it even obligate anyone to shoot you on sight? You may assert this case too extreme, but you would be splitting hairs.
Our form of government is consensual, not absolutist. If the people operating the government feel otherwise, they're on the road to tyranny. I may be forced by circumstance to obey the law but that is the limit of my respect. If the government uses the law to threaten me into silence, my silence does not constitute acquiescence because it is based on the threat, whether explicit or implicit. A threat implies malice and malice makes my silence something other than acquiescence. In any case infringement of my natural rights are not legitimized by good intentions of a majority or minority.
What's wrong with defending your point? Do you need some help constructing an actual rebuttal? Is there anyone following this thread who will help MindBender26 defend his point?
MindBender26> Then to which minority do you give such powers?
> Is there anyone following this thread who will help MindBender26 defend his point?
OneWingedShark> And there is the problem: it should not be based on a minority/majority outlook, but upon an Constitutional/contra-Constitutional one.
Thank you, OneWingedShark, for astutely kicking the needle out of the groove. Sorry about that, MindBender26, I should have caught myself before the rant set in...
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.