CDZ Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

[Humorme]

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

1. Law abiding citizens would.
2. Law abiding citizens would likely not.
3. Over time, increasing quantities non-law abiding citizens, as they break the law, would be (1) removed from society as law enforcement becomes aware of their unlawful gun use/possession and (2) forced to choose means for executing their will that don't kill with the ease and rapidity of firearms. The combined effect of those two progressions would eventually produce a society that's largely gun free.

Nobody in their right mind expects that any gun ownership/possessions will 100% and forever eradicate the incidence of gun violence/deaths or of gun possession, but then neither does complete elimination of them need to be the goal. The goal is to reduce the incidence of gun violence/deaths to something materially lower than it is and has been. What's material? Well, insofar as the incidence of unlawful gun deaths number in the tens of thousands, an initial drop of five to ten percent strikes me as material, both in an abstract sense an in the sense of that being a good beginning upon which we build toward increasingly lower firearm use (unlawful) mortality rates.

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

 

[Humorme]

Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

1. Law abiding citizens would.
2. Law abiding citizens would likely not.
3. Over time, increasing quantities non-law abiding citizens, as they break the law, would be (1) removed from society as law enforcement becomes aware of their unlawful gun use/possession and (2) forced to choose means for executing their will that don't kill with the ease and rapidity of firearms. The combined effect of those two progressions would eventually produce a society that's largely gun free.

Nobody in their right mind expects that any gun ownership/possessions will 100% and forever eradicate the incidence of gun violence/deaths or of gun possession, but then neither does complete elimination of them need to be the goal. The goal is to reduce the incidence of gun violence/deaths to something materially lower than it is and has been. What's material? Well, insofar as the incidence of unlawful gun deaths number in the tens of thousands, an initial drop of five to ten percent strikes me as material, both in an abstract sense an in the sense of that being a good beginning upon which we build toward increasingly lower firearm use (unlawful) mortality rates.

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have not only reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.)

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

1. Law abiding citizens would.
2. Law abiding citizens would likely not.
3. Over time, increasing quantities non-law abiding citizens, as they break the law, would be (1) removed from society as law enforcement becomes aware of their unlawful gun use/possession and (2) forced to choose means for executing their will that don't kill with the ease and rapidity of firearms. The combined effect of those two progressions would eventually produce a society that's largely gun free.

Nobody in their right mind expects that any gun ownership/possessions will 100% and forever eradicate the incidence of gun violence/deaths or of gun possession, but then neither does complete elimination of them need to be the goal. The goal is to reduce the incidence of gun violence/deaths to something materially lower than it is and has been. What's material? Well, insofar as the incidence of unlawful gun deaths number in the tens of thousands, an initial drop of five to ten percent strikes me as material, both in an abstract sense an in the sense of that being a good beginning upon which we build toward increasingly lower firearm use (unlawful) mortality rates.

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

 

[Humorme]

Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

1. Law abiding citizens would.
2. Law abiding citizens would likely not.
3. Over time, increasing quantities non-law abiding citizens, as they break the law, would be (1) removed from society as law enforcement becomes aware of their unlawful gun use/possession and (2) forced to choose means for executing their will that don't kill with the ease and rapidity of firearms. The combined effect of those two progressions would eventually produce a society that's largely gun free.

Nobody in their right mind expects that any gun ownership/possessions will 100% and forever eradicate the incidence of gun violence/deaths or of gun possession, but then neither does complete elimination of them need to be the goal. The goal is to reduce the incidence of gun violence/deaths to something materially lower than it is and has been. What's material? Well, insofar as the incidence of unlawful gun deaths number in the tens of thousands, an initial drop of five to ten percent strikes me as material, both in an abstract sense an in the sense of that being a good beginning upon which we build toward increasingly lower firearm use (unlawful) mortality rates.

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.

 

[Pete7469]

The left also knows the military/police is still dominated by patriots. There is no one to collect the weapons.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.

Your quoting of the SCOTUS doesn't mean you get to decide what laws are to be followed or not.it means you can challenge a statute in court on its constitutionality and if found unconstitutional it does not need to be followed. At which point the law is either stricken from the books or it is stricken through in the books. The point being you are to follow all laws until they are deemed as unconstitutional.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

1. Law abiding citizens would.
2. Law abiding citizens would likely not.
3. Over time, increasing quantities non-law abiding citizens, as they break the law, would be (1) removed from society as law enforcement becomes aware of their unlawful gun use/possession and (2) forced to choose means for executing their will that don't kill with the ease and rapidity of firearms. The combined effect of those two progressions would eventually produce a society that's largely gun free.

Nobody in their right mind expects that any gun ownership/possessions will 100% and forever eradicate the incidence of gun violence/deaths or of gun possession, but then neither does complete elimination of them need to be the goal. The goal is to reduce the incidence of gun violence/deaths to something materially lower than it is and has been. What's material? Well, insofar as the incidence of unlawful gun deaths number in the tens of thousands, an initial drop of five to ten percent strikes me as material, both in an abstract sense an in the sense of that being a good beginning upon which we build toward increasingly lower firearm use (unlawful) mortality rates.

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.

No, it doesn't. What the SCOTUS opinion indicates is that if one is found in violation of an extant law, if one can show in a court of law that the law one is charged with violating is unconstitutional, one cannot be found guilty of violating it.

I agree with the Court's jurisprudence (foundational legal theory) and with its practical implications. That said, one of those implications is that one must prevail in making one's case about the unconstitutionality of the law one is charged with violating. If one does not and one is found guilty of violating it, one is not law abiding.

Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination. Accordingly, one who acts in violation of an extant law because s/he asserts (to him-/herself or publicly) the law itself unconstitutional must obtain a jurist's concordance with that assertion. The process for doing so entails either submitting an amicus brief or being a defendant and using and pursuing an "unconstitutionality of the statute" defense.

 

[MaryL]

Considering the horrible event in Florida this week, we've again heard all about the idea of banning some or all type of firearms from private ownership by private citizens. We've heard anecdotes about Scotland, England and Australia doing such things.

It's been talked about on tv, radio, and from the mouths of parents who have lost children, among many others. My wuedtion is this...

Do you really believe that the vast majority of American gun owners would turn in their guns if rewuired to?

I dont believe thst the majority of American gun owners would. Here's why...

Three different rdgistratoon/ban attempts gave been made here in the US in the last five years or so. All have fsiled miserably in their attempts.

1. The NY SAFE Act passed in 2013 required gun owners to register "assault weapons" already in their possession by January 1, 2014 or face confiscation.
RESILT: Only a few thousand "assault weapons" registrations were ever filed. Even as of 2018, the number I've heard is less thsn 50,000 guns (A minimal number considering the NYS definition of an assault weapon)

2. At the same time the Stste of Connecticut demanded the registration of all "assault weapons" AND all high capacity magazines by January 1, 2014.
RESULTS: Less thsn 5,000 rifles and less than 3,000 high capacity magazine.registrstion forms filed.

3. After the Las Vegas shooting in the fall of 2017, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts banned bump stocks and trigger cranks, effective February 1, 2018. Owners of such devises were not allowed to sell or transfer them, but expected to turn them in to the Police (without compensation).
RESULT: As of the last report I heard on the radio only one bump stock and three trigger cranks had been turned in.

So, whst does this mean?... If the gun owners in some of the most Liberal areas of the country will not comply with these orders, why would anyone expect other gun owners to do so? Especially when the Governors of all three states hsve failed to impose any form of punishment for the defiance?

Prohibition didn't work even when Americans were mostly law abiding and respected "the law". Flash forward , we have states that ignore federal laws like on Cannabis or illegal aliens. It's amazing we agree on anything anymore, but I digress. So, banning guns won't work because like it or not, America is a nation of lawbreaking scoundrels. It's in our bloody DNA, we are idiots.We are amazing. We are....

 

[Humorme]

Considering the horrible event in Florida this week, we've again heard all about the idea of banning some or all type of firearms from private ownership by private citizens. We've heard anecdotes about Scotland, England and Australia doing such things.

It's been talked about on tv, radio, and from the mouths of parents who have lost children, among many others. My wuedtion is this...

Do you really believe that the vast majority of American gun owners would turn in their guns if rewuired to?

I dont believe thst the majority of American gun owners would. Here's why...

Three different rdgistratoon/ban attempts gave been made here in the US in the last five years or so. All have fsiled miserably in their attempts.

1. The NY SAFE Act passed in 2013 required gun owners to register "assault weapons" already in their possession by January 1, 2014 or face confiscation.
RESILT: Only a few thousand "assault weapons" registrations were ever filed. Even as of 2018, the number I've heard is less thsn 50,000 guns (A minimal number considering the NYS definition of an assault weapon)

2. At the same time the Stste of Connecticut demanded the registration of all "assault weapons" AND all high capacity magazines by January 1, 2014.
RESULTS: Less thsn 5,000 rifles and less than 3,000 high capacity magazine.registrstion forms filed.

3. After the Las Vegas shooting in the fall of 2017, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts banned bump stocks and trigger cranks, effective February 1, 2018. Owners of such devises were not allowed to sell or transfer them, but expected to turn them in to the Police (without compensation).
RESULT: As of the last report I heard on the radio only one bump stock and three trigger cranks had been turned in.

So, whst does this mean?... If the gun owners in some of the most Liberal areas of the country will not comply with these orders, why would anyone expect other gun owners to do so? Especially when the Governors of all three states hsve failed to impose any form of punishment for the defiance?

Prohibition didn't work even when Americans were mostly law abiding and respected "the law". Flash forward , we have states that ignore federal laws like on Cannabis or illegal aliens. It's amazing we agree on anything anymore, but I digress. So, banning guns won't work because like it or not, America is a nation of lawbreaking scoundrels. It's in our bloody DNA, we are idiots.We are amazing. We are....

From the very founding of this country, Americans have had an unalienable Right to Life. This includes, but is not limited to owning a firearm to not only insure the security of a free State, but to protect Life and Limb.

Now, as long as I'm alive, people will have guns because I will not turn mine in; I would never register them; if I dispose of them, it will not be with the government's approval or disapproval.

I am the most law abiding person on this thread and can show you security clearances from my past to back that up. America does have a problem with people being killed. Mass shootings were in the news and LONG BEFORE you or any other swinging Richard on ANY of these boards was concerned about the issueand I was already lobbying the pro-gun lobby AND the left (started in 1989) to put in sensible measures that would significantly reduce, if not eliminate mass shootings. It was met with apathy, silence, and complaints of TLDR as if you can solve the issue with bumper sticker slogans.

YOU won't get involved because it isn't about gun control. The right won't get involved because they ignorantly think they are safe from bans / confiscations. NOBODY really cares about addressing the root cause of the problem. Both sides just need a pretext to keep the gun control fight going. People like you are going to destroy the Republic and the right, will do as Nero did - they will fiddle while Rome burns.

 

[Humorme]

1. Law abiding citizens would.
2. Law abiding citizens would likely not.
3. Over time, increasing quantities non-law abiding citizens, as they break the law, would be (1) removed from society as law enforcement becomes aware of their unlawful gun use/possession and (2) forced to choose means for executing their will that don't kill with the ease and rapidity of firearms. The combined effect of those two progressions would eventually produce a society that's largely gun free.

Nobody in their right mind expects that any gun ownership/possessions will 100% and forever eradicate the incidence of gun violence/deaths or of gun possession, but then neither does complete elimination of them need to be the goal. The goal is to reduce the incidence of gun violence/deaths to something materially lower than it is and has been. What's material? Well, insofar as the incidence of unlawful gun deaths number in the tens of thousands, an initial drop of five to ten percent strikes me as material, both in an abstract sense an in the sense of that being a good beginning upon which we build toward increasingly lower firearm use (unlawful) mortality rates.

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.

No, it doesn't. What the SCOTUS opinion indicates is that if one is found in violation of an extant law, if one can show in a court of law that the law one is charged with violating is unconstitutional, one cannot be found guilty of violating it.

I agree with the Court's jurisprudence (foundational legal theory) and with its practical implications. That said, one of those implications is that one must prevail in making one's case about the unconstitutionality of the law one is charged with violating. If one does not and one is found guilty of violating it, one is not law abiding.

Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination. Accordingly, one who acts in violation of an extant law because s/he asserts (to him-/herself or publicly) the law itself unconstitutional must obtain a jurist's concordance with that assertion. The process for doing so entails either submitting an amicus brief or being a defendant and using and pursuing an "unconstitutionality of the statute" defense.

My replies are being deleted. There is no honest discussion when censorship and then another poster wanting to bully me are allowed. I can't fight with my hands tied behind my back.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Your quoting of the SCOTUS doesn't mean you get to decide what laws are to be followed or not.

So, why does the Supreme Court get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it will uphold and which it will not?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.

Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

• Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.

No, it doesn't. What the SCOTUS opinion indicates is that if one is found in violation of an extant law, if one can show in a court of law that the law one is charged with violating is unconstitutional, one cannot be found guilty of violating it.

I agree with the Court's jurisprudence (foundational legal theory) and with its practical implications. That said, one of those implications is that one must prevail in making one's case about the unconstitutionality of the law one is charged with violating. If one does not and one is found guilty of violating it, one is not law abiding.

Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination. Accordingly, one who acts in violation of an extant law because s/he asserts (to him-/herself or publicly) the law itself unconstitutional must obtain a jurist's concordance with that assertion. The process for doing so entails either submitting an amicus brief or being a defendant and using and pursuing an "unconstitutionality of the statute" defense.

My replies are being deleted. There is no honest discussion when censorship and then another poster wanting to bully me are allowed. I can't fight with my hands tied behind my back.

Are you asserting that something you penned in response to comments in this thread has been deleted? I can say only that of your remarks that I have here read and replied to, none have been deleted.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."

The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.

Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.

In post 169 -- CDZ - Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns? -- I expounded upon my assertion that the denotation of "law abiding" isn't debatable. Nothing has changed.

As is so for any individual, upon (1) a jurist's determination that the statute is constitutional and (2) the court's determination, given the evidence presented, that a defendant did indeed perform the actus reus and possess the mens rea needed to be held criminally culpable, yes, so it is that public servants can be called law abiding or law breaking, just as can anyone else.

As goes the matter of a public servant's violating their oath of office, well, the extent to which their doing so constitutes breaking the law depends on whether upholding it is by law required. I think military servants are legally bound to that oaths of office. Other public servants, however, may not be so formally bound, and those who aren't, if they break their oath of office can be said to have derelicted their duty and/or breached a public trust, but not not to have broken the law.

There is in the law a grey area whereby something must by law happen, however, violations of the code section isn't an offense/breaking of the law. Such statutes are readily identified by their lacking penalty provisions. The non-Presidential oath of office is one such law. Individuals taking that oath of office must, to receive the appointment and carry it out, take the oath as noted, but so averring is all they must do to be legally compliant.

AFAIK, the Oath of Office Accountability Act has not been enacted.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What guns are you talking about officer ... no guns here ...



.

Easy enough
Your neighbors will turn you in
But once you get caught, you get sent to a FEMA Death Camp never to be heard of.

Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If it becomes law that you can't own certain guns then people will turn in their illegal weapons for the most part. The rest will be criminals.

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, the true criminals will be those in government who refuse to obey it; who act in any manner to violate the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Riiiight. Well regulated, it's right in there. Cons have come to really love ignoring the parts they don't like, and elevating the parts they do like to myth like status.

Like the bible.

Ya scared?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Maybe the lesson they need to learn is that if they want to protect the country from tyranny, armed insurrection is not the best way. I'm hoping they will engage in the democratic process and take it back from the special interests and return it to the people of America.

I think they'll find that if no one has an assault rife, no one needs an assault rife.

The Democratic process has become so broken thst we are rapidly reaching the bullets over ballots tippong point.

American gun owners don't have assault weapons (unfortunatrly). We have semi-automatic copies of assault weapons. Our potential enemies (the US Military and Law Enforcement) do have real assault weapons.

Sadly; it does appear that we are marching ever closer toward a less peaceful resolution of our differences.

So who do you see coming out on top?

 

[Vastator]

Maybe the lesson they need to learn is that if they want to protect the country from tyranny, armed insurrection is not the best way. I'm hoping they will engage in the democratic process and take it back from the special interests and return it to the people of America.

I think they'll find that if no one has an assault rife, no one needs an assault rife.

The Democratic process has become so broken thst we are rapidly reaching the bullets over ballots tippong point.

American gun owners don't have assault weapons (unfortunatrly). We have semi-automatic copies of assault weapons. Our potential enemies (the US Military and Law Enforcement) do have real assault weapons.

Sadly; it does appear that we are marching ever closer toward a less peaceful resolution of our differences.

So who do you see coming out on top?

The prepared.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I don't think Americans will turn in their guns....There are 300 million of them

But I think that when Dad and Grandpa die, their treasured gun collection will be passed down to children and grandchildren who really don't want them

I got an Uzi and a .357 lever action rifle when my Old Man passed.