LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
That could be a delusion.Originally Posted by Ringo
I don't believe anyone around here is delusional, quite to the contrary.
What guns? I don't have no guns.
Thankfully I saw some information from a group called Brady and I saw the light and took all those evil items and smelted them into an appropriate statue.
Whew, that was close
| |  |
That could be a delusion.I don't believe anyone around here is delusional, quite to the contrary.
Banned
Right to Carry works, One-gun-a-month doesn't OK here is a point that has not been brought up in the entire thread to this point. The Right to Carry revolution, as termed by Marion Hammer of FL the woman who got the ball rolling on this, started back in 1986. Since then several states have signed on to the concept of the "shall-issue" permitting system. No state that has adopted "shall-issue" has ever taken the law off the books. Right to carry works.
Contrast this with a one-gun-a-month law. Originally passed in 1976 in SC, the one-gun-a-month law has been a stupid and pointless concept from the get-go. Since 1976 a handful of other states have adopted one-gun-a-month, VA, MD, and I believe NJ and possibly MA. In 2003 SC became the first state to repeal a one-gun-a-month law. VA is looking to become the second to do so. The reason for SC and VA taking the law off the books, it did not have any positive effect on crime rates.
South Carolina has tried a number of dumb laws that they have thankfully taken off the books,
1- One-gun-a-month law
2- Alcoholic liquor service limited to mini-bottles
3- Application of tatoos to another person illegal
4- Marriage to a person of another race illegal
5- Performing oral sex illegal (how do you enforce that?!?)
Right to carry won't make that list.
Had a very good friend do just that. Then he did two years in the pen. Constitutional law is not a factor for an individual in criminal court. It usually only works in appelate court and then only for class action suits. Nobody is arguing that you are not right, but you still will have broken the law and will be treated as any other criminal.
This is why I keep pushing the changing of state laws, and stop relying on court decisions about the Second amendment (whether in U.S. or State constitutions). It does not offer effective individual protection.
I'm OK with doing time in jail / prison if it means standing up for rights that I know I have, regardless of what the government says.
I would, however, have to disagree with your statement that constitutional law is not a factor for an individual in criminal court. People use it all the time. The 4th amendment comes up quite regularly, and people often invoke the 5th. "You have the right to remain silent" stems from the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. The right to a trial, and a lawyer to defend you is your 6th amendment right.
So if you, for example, were to be arrested for speaking out against the policies of the government, you could use constitutional law (1st amendment) to defend yourself.
My state didn't ask what weapons I own, nor did I have to list any on my permit. My home state has their own verbatim gun right in their state constitution, and is one of the 36 states with both open carry and CCW priviledges. What country are you from?
If you are going to pay a lawyer to challenge the constitutionality of a law banning guns, why do it from a jail cell when you can do it the way Heller and McDonald did it?
Also, bad cases can make bad law. If Heller had defied the DC gun ban and had been arrested instead of prospectively challenging the gun ban, one or more of the 5 in the majority might have gone the other way, resulting in the gun ban being upheld.
The 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments are incorporated into State Laws by the 14th Amendment "Due Process clauses". When you use them in court you are not utilizing the U.S. Constitution but the "due process" of state law. You don't "plead the fifth" in a state court. You simply state that you can refuse to make a statement that might incriminate yourself. This is part of state due process. We watched all of those gangsters use the term "plead the fifth" , but they were facing Federal jursidiction, where the USC does apply.
The 2d Amendment, as of yet (fingers crossed on McDonald vs Chicago) is not incorporated. It would not be a valid argument in a state court. If the state has its own RTKBA provision you would use that (as in Tennessee.)
Again, the U.S. Constitution was still written by Lawyers and deliberately made to be vague, so as to allow interpretation. It is not nearly as all encompassing as many assume. You still need state laws to back up your rights. We need to concentrate as much at state level as we are concentrating Federal level.
I think the original lawyers who wrote the Constitution were honorable men who tried to write it in the plainest language. I don't think they were trying to be vague. But the unscrupulous lawyers of latter years have tried to twist that plain language and make it say whatever they want. Look at the 4th amendment. It is very clear that your accusers must make sworn affadivits against you before a search can be carried out. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that police may search your home based on an anonymous phone tip. There are many more examples but you get the idea.
Avidshooter (Texas)
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Plutarch
I do believe that a "states' rights" fight is where this country is headed and I agree that we must focus as much effort and attention on the state as we do on the fed.
I also agree that the Constitution was written plainly but the language and intent has indeed been corruputed over the generations. Such is the nature of man and the allure of power...
As far as required training, this is not mandated by the 2A. However, I have posted many times that those who, with no training, just "strap it on" and think they are good to go, are seriously deluding themselves and will be sorely deficient if ever the SHTF on top of them. While they may be Constitutionally correct in their position, I would not take them on my team. In an encounter with a truly BG, these people will probably be weeded from the gene pool.
Posting Permissions
