Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

[Emma]

Glad to see you were able to get some rest.

Well, it was a couple-hour nap before work tonight. Then they called me off

*sigh*

BTW, I think Kevin makes some excellent points which echo those made by Napolitano regarding natural law vs positivism.

Thank you. I assume you're talking about Judge Andrew Napolitano? I enjoy his work quite a bit.

Yes.

I don't agree with everything he says on every issue (I'm an evil liberal, after all ), but his views about natural law vs positivism are dead on, IMO. And I admire that he is consistent; he doesn't have an 'ends justifies the means' view of law enforcement, for example.

He described all that in Constitutional Chaos and his other book I can't recall the name of right now...

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

maybe not

You need to watch the "Evil Liberal Leftist." She will surprise you. She likes her Constitution. That doesn't mean that we don't go at it sometimes.

The 14th Amendment was intended( per legislative intent of the actual text) to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1865 into the Constitution and make the Act Constitutional. It was not written to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, that line of thinking from the SCOTUS and other inferior courts is wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Glad to see you were able to get some rest.

Well, it was a couple-hour nap before work tonight. Then they called me off

*sigh*

BTW, I think Kevin makes some excellent points which echo those made by Napolitano regarding natural law vs positivism.

Kevin made some good points, in regards to what you spoke of. But, when it came defending his point per the Constitution, he wasn't able to, in my opinion. I understand the position he was arguing from. And in my opinion, it was a patriotic mindset shared by our founding generation, even though said mindset was not written into law. We have to go by what is per the law.

Kevin is a good debater. I enjoyed the debate with him. We disagree on this aspect of the II Amendment legally speaking. But on a personal level, we are in agreement. So, its all good.

My point didn't have a constitutional basis. I'm well aware that the Constitution allows for the state of New York to create it's own laws. However, I oppose any law that infringes on a person's natural rights, constitutional or not.

I think we had a good discussion as well, and I think we'll have some good ones in the future.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

NRA-ILA :: NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

The NRA is wrong on that. They need some constitutional viagra for their argument. The worst thing they could have done, was argue "incorporation." I would be shocked if Stephen Halbrook was their lawyer for that case. From what I have read of him, he does not believe in incorporation theory.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, it was a couple-hour nap before work tonight. Then they called me off

*sigh*

BTW, I think Kevin makes some excellent points which echo those made by Napolitano regarding natural law vs positivism.

Thank you. I assume you're talking about Judge Andrew Napolitano? I enjoy his work quite a bit.

Yes.

I don't agree with everything he says on every issue (I'm an evil liberal, after all ), but his views about natural law vs positivism are dead on, IMO. And I admire that he is consistent; he doesn't have an 'ends justifies the means' view of law enforcement, for example.

He described all that in Constitutional Chaos and his other book I can't recall the name of right now...

The Constitution in Exile?

He also discusses it in his newest book, Dred Scott's Revenge.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Well, it was a couple-hour nap before work tonight. Then they called me off

*sigh*

BTW, I think Kevin makes some excellent points which echo those made by Napolitano regarding natural law vs positivism.

Kevin made some good points, in regards to what you spoke of. But, when it came defending his point per the Constitution, he wasn't able to, in my opinion. I understand the position he was arguing from. And in my opinion, it was a patriotic mindset shared by our founding generation, even though said mindset was not written into law. We have to go by what is per the law.

Kevin is a good debater. I enjoyed the debate with him. We disagree on this aspect of the II Amendment legally speaking. But on a personal level, we are in agreement. So, its all good.

My point didn't have a constitutional basis. I'm well aware that the Constitution allows for the state of New York to create it's own laws. However, I oppose any law that infringes on a person's natural rights, constitutional or not.

I think we had a good discussion as well, and I think we'll have some good ones in the future.

On a personal level, I agree with you. But when it comes to defending the Constitution, I cannot allow my personal feelings to usurp the proper interpretation of the Constitution. We have to go with what is actually written etc.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, it was a couple-hour nap before work tonight. Then they called me off

*sigh*

BTW, I think Kevin makes some excellent points which echo those made by Napolitano regarding natural law vs positivism.

Kevin made some good points, in regards to what you spoke of. But, when it came defending his point per the Constitution, he wasn't able to, in my opinion. I understand the position he was arguing from. And in my opinion, it was a patriotic mindset shared by our founding generation, even though said mindset was not written into law. We have to go by what is per the law.

Kevin is a good debater. I enjoyed the debate with him. We disagree on this aspect of the II Amendment legally speaking. But on a personal level, we are in agreement. So, its all good.

My point didn't have a constitutional basis. I'm well aware that the Constitution allows for the state of New York to create it's own laws. However, I oppose any law that infringes on a person's natural rights, constitutional or not.

I think we had a good discussion as well, and I think we'll have some good ones in the future.

I also want to point out that I don't advocate the federal government coming in and changing New York's law, as that would be a serious breach of justice in my opinion. I'd just like to see New York repeal it's own law in favor of natural rights.

 

[Emma]

You need to watch the "Evil Liberal Leftist." She will surprise you. She likes her Constitution. That doesn't mean that we don't go at it sometimes.

The 14th Amendment was intended( per legislative intent of the actual text) to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1865 into the Constitution and make the Act Constitutional. It was not written to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, that line of thinking from the SCOTUS and other inferior courts is wrong.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What they may have intended isn't relevant; what the amendment actually says is. It's clear (to me) that this clause applies the protection and guarantees of the BoR to the states.

 

[Emma]

Thank you. I assume you're talking about Judge Andrew Napolitano? I enjoy his work quite a bit.

Yes.

I don't agree with everything he says on every issue (I'm an evil liberal, after all ), but his views about natural law vs positivism are dead on, IMO. And I admire that he is consistent; he doesn't have an 'ends justifies the means' view of law enforcement, for example.

He described all that in Constitutional Chaos and his other book I can't recall the name of right now...

The Constitution in Exile?

He also discusses it in his newest book, Dred Scott's Revenge.

Yeah, that one. I also have the one about sheep... lol

Haven't seen the new one yet. I just spent more on Amazon today, so I have to be strong and stay away from there for a while

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Thank you. I assume you're talking about Judge Andrew Napolitano? I enjoy his work quite a bit.

Yes.

I don't agree with everything he says on every issue (I'm an evil liberal, after all ), but his views about natural law vs positivism are dead on, IMO. And I admire that he is consistent; he doesn't have an 'ends justifies the means' view of law enforcement, for example.

He described all that in Constitutional Chaos and his other book I can't recall the name of right now...

The Constitution in Exile?

He also discusses it in his newest book, Dred Scott's Revenge.

"Dred Scott's Revenge" is a good book. The judge makes a lot of good points in his books. At the same time, he also makes a lot of claims and fails to properly support his position. He does have a lengthy bibliography and I make sure of such with books. I don't think the average casual reader takes the time to research it all out.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Yes.

I don't agree with everything he says on every issue (I'm an evil liberal, after all ), but his views about natural law vs positivism are dead on, IMO. And I admire that he is consistent; he doesn't have an 'ends justifies the means' view of law enforcement, for example.

He described all that in Constitutional Chaos and his other book I can't recall the name of right now...

The Constitution in Exile?

He also discusses it in his newest book, Dred Scott's Revenge.

Yeah, that one. I also have the one about sheep... lol

Haven't seen the new one yet. I just spent more on Amazon today, so I have to be strong and stay away from there for a while

If I had known you were looking for a book fix, I could have "fixed" you up with one from 1805 written by John Marshall himself.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The 14th Amendment was intended( per legislative intent of the actual text) to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1865 into the Constitution and make the Act Constitutional. It was not written to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, that line of thinking from the SCOTUS and other inferior courts is wrong.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What they may have intended isn't relevant; what the amendment actually says is. It's clear (to me) that this clause applies the protection and guarantees of the BoR to the states.

When there is question of ambiguity in any way, legislative intent is in fact relevant. In fact, in is one of the principles of Constitutional Law. You and I disagree on the proper use of the XIV Amendment. It will always be "go time" for us on that issue.


I am not giving up.

 

[Emma]

The Constitution in Exile?

He also discusses it in his newest book, Dred Scott's Revenge.

Yeah, that one. I also have the one about sheep... lol

Haven't seen the new one yet. I just spent more on Amazon today, so I have to be strong and stay away from there for a while

If I had known you were looking for a book fix, I could have "fixed" you up with one from 1805 written by John Marshall himself.

lol

Must. Resist.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Yeah, that one. I also have the one about sheep... lol

Haven't seen the new one yet. I just spent more on Amazon today, so I have to be strong and stay away from there for a while

If I had known you were looking for a book fix, I could have "fixed" you up with one from 1805 written by John Marshall himself.

lol

Must. Resist.

I just gone a first edition "The Life of Thomas Paine" two weeks ago. It was written by his used to be good friend James Chatham. It was published the same year Paine died, 1809.

I will be good now. Back on topic.

 

[Emma]

The 14th Amendment was intended( per legislative intent of the actual text) to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1865 into the Constitution and make the Act Constitutional. It was not written to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, that line of thinking from the SCOTUS and other inferior courts is wrong.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What they may have intended isn't relevant; what the amendment actually says is. It's clear (to me) that this clause applies the protection and guarantees of the BoR to the states.

When there is question of ambiguity in any way, legislative intent is in fact relevant. In fact, in is one of the principles of Constitutional Law. You and I disagree on the proper use of the XIV Amendment. It will always be "go time" for us on that issue.


I am not giving up.

Neither am I.

I don't see that wording as ambiguous at all. It's pretty straightforward.

Intent is a fascinating study, but when it comes right down to it, it's what is written in the Amendment that counts. If it were ambiguous, I could see the Court trying to ascertain what the intent was, I'll grant you that. But that clause is cut and dry.

 

[Soaring]

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

You peop]le continue to confuse New York State gun control laws with New York City laws which are against the law because our constitution does not give municipalities the right to establish laws which do not adhere to the state laws. The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun. Period. Case closed.

 

[Emma]

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

You peop]le continue to confuse New York State gun control laws with New York City laws which are against the law because our constitution does not give municipalities the right to establish laws which do not adhere to the state laws. The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun. Period. Case closed.

BGG posted a section of the NY constitution that he says allows municipalities to construct their own gun laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

You peop]le continue to confuse New York State gun control laws with New York City laws which are against the law because our constitution does not give municipalities the right to establish laws which do not adhere to the state laws. The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun. Period. Case closed.

Well I'm not familiar with New York's Constitution so I don't know. I was simply going by what the article said.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

You peop]le continue to confuse New York State gun control laws with New York City laws which are against the law because our constitution does not give municipalities the right to establish laws which do not adhere to the state laws. The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun. Period. Case closed.

What is this "you people" crap? I am not a "you people." I am my own person.

Kevin and I were not debating the legal nuances that you retorted with here. If you read our exchanges from today, you will see that.

 

[Soaring]

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

You peop]le continue to confuse New York State gun control laws with New York City laws which are against the law because our constitution does not give municipalities the right to establish laws which do not adhere to the state laws. The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun. Period. Case closed.

What is this "you people" crap? I am not a "you people." I am my own person.

Kevin and I were not debating the legal nuances that you retorted with here. If you read our exchanges from today, you will see that.

Your retort has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You and Kevin don't have exclusive rights to this forum. Again, why are you confusing New York state and New York city rights regarding gun laws in the United States? Cities don't have the right to make gun laws. We just saw the Washington DC law get shot down because it was illegal.