• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Call for Federal Law to back Constitutional Law

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Since the Constitution itself demands it, I don't know why everyone keeps looking to the states to "interpret" it. The Feds should have hammered out a totally supportive law eons ago, when the Bill of Rights was first ratified.

I support federal open carry and think it should be legalized in every state. I also support federal concealed carry, with appropriate permits, in every state. The second amendment of our constitution was written to allow for this..."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,740
Location
here nc
Since the Constitution itself demands it, I don't know why everyone keeps looking to the states to "interpret" it. The Feds should have hammered out a totally supportive law eons ago, when the Bill of Rights was first ratified.

I support federal open carry and think it should be legalized in every state. I also support federal concealed carry, with appropriate permits, in every state. The second amendment of our constitution was written to allow for this..."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
So since9, as you campaign for even more federal oversight of this nation’s citizenry coupled with the fact this subject has been discussed numerous times on this forum in the the recent past, which federal agency is going to oversee this stupendous federal intrusion?

Homeland, ATF, FBI, or a newly created agency, so who is the lucky winner of the federal profit center?

Is your plot going to follow Dr Lott’s schema, training, CC only, after the citizens’ firearms are registered?

In the details of your recent epiphany, did your vision included level of citizens training, pseudo BLET suffice? Conflict resolution? Generic discussion of Laws of Deadly force? i know bring on a harden Gunny and institutionalization military style firearm training so the citizens can get their FEDERAL privilege card.

Of course citizenry live fire exercises manifested in your magnificent vision of the way the 2A “ALLOWS” this to happen.

Finally, at the moment this nation’s lower income citizens are unable to afford the 75$ > 150$ Instructor fees, on top of the state’s profit center “application processing, fingerprinting, ad nauseam” fees which in some states are egregiously off the scale. [I’m not implying this was/is done purposely!]

So since9 please oh great soothsayer, guide us to campaign so we can put your vision resulting from breathing smog filled rocky mtn rarified air epiphany [or John Denver’s air] into practice, especially with Congressional incumbents running amok issuing subpoenas to everyone they believe have slighted them over the last several years!

We await your words.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,607
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I read this last night before going to bed. I decided to just go to bed.

How often do I have to post this?

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “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.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down.

The lower courts say the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Apparently, a lot of people believe anything they hear. That includes politicians and judges. Then they try to justify their opinion as law, destroying peoples’ lives.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
729
Location
MO, USA
I support federal open carry and think it should be legalized in every state.
(y)

There ottabe a law ... but we already have one, since 1791. Unfortunately many states and feds have been in open rebellion against it.

Have to be mighty careful about trying to solve guv lawlessness by composing more law. They're pretty good at their game.

I also support federal concealed carry, with appropriate permits, in every state.
(n)(n)(n)

Permits? Papers please?



Nope - that law would violate prior and higher law.

Ever hear of Constitutional Carry? That's the real thing. Growing....

 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,740
Location
here nc
HP995, where did you find the most excellent meme of CoL ~ superb likeness :eek:

1557680080197.png
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
211
Location
Planet Earth
While the idea of national recognition of our Second Amendment rights sounds good, you only have to look at most government run programs to see how bollixed up they become.
AND, as others have noted, if the government "licenses" it, they can rescind it too.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
If the gov state or Fed intended to honor the RTKABA willingly they wouldn't spend so much time , manpower and money blatantly violating it.


What we just got in KY is NOT constitutional carry. It's permitless cc.
Had certain folks here not jumped the gun in the 90s we would have had permitless cc then.
Constitutional carry would be carry , whatever, whereever, whenever.
No gov has any authority to breach the subject of the RTKABA.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,898
Location
White Oak Plantation
... The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre[sic] and causing a panic.”

Apparently, a lot of people believe anything they hear. That includes politicians and judges. Then they try to justify their opinion as law, destroying peoples’ lives.
(y) and a🥇

From Schenck, in my view, the singular component is the use of the term "falsely", not "causing panic." Our friends from Norte Cackalaky certainly have some experiences with the causing panic part....err, I mean terror.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,607
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
(y) and a🥇

From Schenck, in my view, the singular component is the use of the term "falsely", not "causing panic." Our friends from Norte Cackalaky certainly have some experiences with the causing panic part....err, I mean terror.
I don't necessarily disagree, but "falsely" and "causing panic" both must exist to be a crime. If the falsely shouting fire does NOT cause panic then no crime was committed. Just as the opposite exists, shouting fire because a fire does exists causing panic is also not a crime, to a degree. It is like fighting words. It is not the words themselves, it is the cause and effect of the words. If the words are colloquial even belittling in a general way is not a crime. Telling a cop to "F himself" is not a crime. And many cops have no understanding of disorderly conduct or if they do they abuse it.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
At some point we must take it ALL back.
Now this is the summary for which I was looking. Yes, I did take the time to read your detailed expose' letter by letter. Very nice! And saved for future reference.

But as you and others have noted, it has been infringed, and it will continue to be infringed, until We the People toe the line.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,740
Location
here nc
Now this is the summary for which I was looking. Yes, I did take the time to read your detailed expose' letter by letter. Very nice! And saved for future reference.

But as you and others have noted, it has been infringed, and it will continue to be infringed, until We the People toe the line.
So since9, by the bolded portion of your statement the infringement of this nation’s constitution is this country’s citizens fault?

Def of the phrase ‘toe the line’ ~ accept the authority, principles, or policies of a particular group, especially under pressure.

Just who’s authority do you wish “WE THE PEOPLE” to capitulate to since9 to assure the infringement will cease?
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
191
Location
Planet Earth
It seems as if "We the People" should do some needed and righteous "butt-kicking" as, like Solus, the People are not the problem. It is the "sphincters" we have selected to run the government that are the problem.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,607
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"Stevens previously has called for repeal of the Second Amendment or a clarification saying it applies only to people serving in militias."
"The amendment was previously understood to allow legislative limits on guns. Stevens cited a 1939 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Miller, that held Congress could ban possession of a sawed-off shotgun because it had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well-regulated militia.”"

Now you understand the the difference between the the law and an opinion. Asking for the second amendment to be repealed means Stevens clearly understands the second amendment means it shall not be infringed.
 
Top