National Preemption

[eye95]

Here, again, is the part of the proposed law that prohibits behavior say the States and by state actors, including law enforcement, and defines recourse:

All such laws, rules, or regulations in existence at the time of adoption or passed into existence after adoption of this act are null and void. Any attempts to enforce such laws after adoption of this act are punishable under law [outlined elsewhere] and subject to civil action [outlined elsewhere] by the Person upon whom enforced.

All such laws, rules, or regulations must be repealed within two years of adoption of this act. Any such laws, rules, or regulations remaining after two years may be removed by civil action with all costs being borne by the governmental agency responsible for the law, rule, or regulation.

None of the recourse in this bill is any different than the recourses already available to individuals who find a State law, or the enforcement thereof, to violate Rights. State and local governments already can be sued to remove laws that violate Rights—and be forced to compensate victims for costs and damages. Law enforcement can already be brought up on federal criminal charges for violating the Rights of citizens.

This is nothing new. The feds already have this kind of authority and have used it. This is merely a new application, one that a patchwork of State and local laws has proven is necessary.

 

[OC for ME]

Tax payers will bear the burden of any monetary penalty. Bureaucrat drones will not be held to account criminally...just following the laws passed by the state legislature. Elected officials would be immune...think a judge's absolute immunity.

Sure, voter ire may...may, make a difference down the road. But, knowing that cops' behaviors are very rarely changed due to civil penalties and the unicorn rare criminal penalty.

 

[eye95]

My proposal is not intended to hold bureaucrats or elected officials accountable. That would be the responsibility of the voters of the State or locality. If they don’t (as you predict) put law-abiding folks into power, the voters deserve to pay higher taxes.

Individual law enforcement who violate the 2A Rights of citizens could be held personally, criminally responsible for their actions—much as they can today for violating other Rights.

Again, this is nothing new. It is longtime available processes being applied to our RKBA. It may take a long time to change cop behavior, but it will improve their behavior relative to carry—especially after laws upon which they rely are gone (by court action, if necessary).

The main benefit will be the removal of laws.
____

Thanks for discussing my proposal in a rational manner. I appreciate disagreement that is on the up-and-up.

 

[solus]

Snippppp

Folks this tweet and the one to which I am responding are examples of a not useful way to debate on OCDO. The two posts immediately above are examples of useful debate.

A good rule of thumb: If you want people to treat you respectfully, treat them respectfully.

So eye95, you, in a fit of fancy, have decided to anoint thyself OCDO’s etiquette and adjunct grammer overseer ~ most excellent!

Tho one [read ‘the folks’] would believe as the “self anointed one” you would at least lead by bloody example following your “good rule of thumb” and not continue in rude chastising nor engage in petulant childish elementary playground outbursts of name calling.

Kinda diminishes your credibility as E&G overseer don’t ya think?

 

[color of law]

What about National Preemption does not require squat of a State do you not get?

National Preemption prohibits behavior, and would define penalties for behavior that violates the prohibition.
____

Folks this tweet and the one to which I am responding are examples of a not useful way to debate on OCDO. The two posts immediately above are examples of useful debate.

A good rule of thumb: If you want people to treat you respectfully, treat them respectfully.

No, there is no debate. You think offering an outlandish proposal that would be legally unenforceable and being told a 100 times that your frivolous thinking is an absurdity is debating then you are living in candy land.

 

[eye95]

...

Thanks for discussing my proposal in a rational manner. I appreciate disagreement that is on the up-and-up.

Again, thank you OCforMe.

 

[solus]

to quote the 1713 works of Chalkley
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’.

 

[hammer6]

Again, the law I propose does not ask any State to enforce anything, let alone a federal law. It prohibits behavior on their part and on the part of local governments and assigns penalties. If those governments participate in that behavior, they could be punished for having done so.

The behaviour is already prohibited.

 

[eye95]

sigh

One more time.

The 2A has no teeth.

This law clearly outlines the prohibited behavior and has teeth.

 

[color of law]

sigh

One more time.

The 2A has no teeth.

This law clearly outlines the prohibited behavior and has teeth.

Oh thank you God, this is the last time eye95 is going to bring this subject up, praise the lord!!!!!!

 

[hammer6]

sigh

One more time.

The 2A has no teeth.

This law clearly outlines the prohibited behavior and has teeth.

"RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution."

You're right, being valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution brings no teeth with it. It has plenty of teeth- the people are just too weak to use them. Because, our country being designed like this, the people hold the power not the government.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the laws that Congress passes. Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void, as confirmed by the SCOTUS in Marbury v Madison.

 

[Ghost1958]

What about National Preemption does not require squat of a State do you not get?

National Preemption prohibits behavior, and would define penalties for behavior that violates the prohibition.
____

Folks this tweet and the one to which I am responding are examples of a not useful way to debate on OCDO. The two posts immediately above are examples of useful debate.

A good rule of thumb: If you want people to treat you respectfully, treat them respectfully.

OK I'll try again.

Congress does not pass proposals, ideas, etc.
It can only pass laws. Laws either require, or prohibit something.

In any case whatever it passes is a FEDERAL LAW.
The states are not bound by Federal law not Amended into the constitution in the amendment procedure.

The Congress cannot impose penalties on the states. Period
The states do not have to even RECOGNIZE an act of congress.

You may turn and word twist your idea anyway you wish but it would be
1 unconstitutional.
2 unenforceable
3 illegal.
4 struck down by SCOTUS in about a week .

This debate is futile as it debates something that cannot be done .

Nor should be able to be done frankly.

 

[solus]

Whip that dead oxen!

 

[color of law]

Can someone please pass the ammunition?

 

[eye95]

"RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution."

You're right, being valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution brings no teeth with it. It has plenty of teeth- the people are just too weak to use them. Because, our country being designed like this, the people hold the power not the government.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the laws that Congress passes. Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void, as confirmed by the SCOTUS in Marbury v Madison.

Teeth are consequences. The 2A has no consequences. I won’t waste any more time repeating this point to you.

 

[OC for ME]

The feds getting past QI will be the same hurdle as anyone at the state or local level. Until the judiciary gets its head on straight and eliminates QI anyone holding cops accountable will not change from what we have today.

I agree, a federal criminal statute that could be applied to a cop for his abuse of our rights would be a effective deterrent to future rights violations. Saddly it is that "clearly establish" crap that frustrates me.

 

[eye95]

The feds getting past QI will be the same hurdle as anyone at the state or local level. Until the judiciary gets its head on straight and eliminates QI anyone holding cops accountable will not change from what we have today.

I agree, a federal criminal statute that could be applied to a cop for his abuse of our rights would be a effective deterrent to future rights violations. Saddly it is that "clearly establish" crap that frustrates me.

Thank you.

You raise valid points. Not every cop that violates our 2A Rights will be successfully prosecuted under National Preemption, but enough will be to make police behavior better.

Successfully prosecuting cops for violating Rights has happened before. Let’s just create a tool to do it for violating 2A Rights.

 

[OC for ME]

I'll vote for that.

 

[eye95]

I'll vote for that.

Any advice you have for making the proposal better would be appreciated. After all, that was kinda the point of the thread before...you know...

Thanks again for quality discussion.

 

[solus]

The feds getting past QI will be the same hurdle as anyone at the state or local level. Until the judiciary gets its head on straight and eliminates QI anyone holding cops accountable will not change from what we have today.

I agree, a federal criminal statute that could be applied to a cop for his abuse of our rights would be a effective deterrent to future rights violations. Saddly it is that "clearly establish" crap that frustrates me.

OC for ME, remember this push on elimination of QI would/should also eliminate/mitigate 18USC 926C provisions [LEOSA] as it lend perception of those are a privileged class of citizens!