Taken as a part of the whole of his responses/posts I guess you are right ....
Once cannot hide behind presumptions IMO ... a LEO must not enforce laws he BELIEVES to be unconstitutional .. just hiding behind a presumption is not enough IMO
First off, what Wolf described is not treason, treason is very specifically described in the constitution
second off, whether or not a law or order is unconstitutional and should be treated as such is a huge gray area with little guidance. The current case law on qualified immunity says an officer loses their QI for committing acts in violation of "well established law" so an order to search a car absent probable cause is clearly unconstitutional. or a law allowing such, however there is no clearly established law on this subject. both the
Heller and
McDonald decisions were decided on a narrow ruling about outright bans on common types of small arms. no mention was made to CC, AWBs, mag capacity, etc etc etc. there is little case law on the subject, and none in New York. so in the opinion of people who support RKBA (myself included) this very well is a violation of the second amendment. but a case can be made that it is not.
I was recently at the WA state law library in Olympia, and in the basement they have some kind of publication of canadian law, so I randomly picked up one from the late 1980s and began reading, it was about the nuremberg principle and the duty of members of the Canadian Forces to disobey "unlawful orders" after 20 pages of rambling case law, the big punchline was, you don't know the order was unlawful until being court-martialed for disobeying it.
basically what I'm saying, the constitutionality of a specific law is rarely black and white.
