Vermont reciprocity agreement with NY state TO ALLOW CONCEALED CARRY? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Vermont reciprocity agreement with NY state TO ALLOW CONCEALED CARRY?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Correct.

    But choosing to violate a federal law - either because you think it is unconstitutional or you are just bent on breaking laws - is much different from carrying a firearm in violation of the law while not knowing it of the law.

    Knowledge is so much better than ignorance regardless of the personal choices one makes.
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
    All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).

    UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
    To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677.

    EXERCISING A RIGHT CANNOT BE CRIME
    The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489.

    STATES MUST OBEY CONSTITUTION
    The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964

    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
    No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach
    a fee to it.
    "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by
    Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO
    rule making or legislation which
    would abrogate them."

    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
    "Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no
    duties, it affords no protection, it
    creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as
    though it had never been passed."

    U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346
    If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.

    Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622
    “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

    Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974 Expounds upon Owen

    Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
    “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  2.   
  3. Post #11 is all fine and dandy - but you still might be typing it while in prison when the US Supreme Court disagrees with you on what is and is not Constitutional.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesMorrison View Post
    Any person of legal age (not sure but 21?) can carry a handgun openly or concealed with NO PERMIT REQUIRED.
    Doesn't matter which state YOU are from, you're legal in VT.
    Come over from Cali?
    Bring your guns!
    Come up from Maryland?
    Well, now you could buy AND carry guns!
    No permit required!

    I left Florida and a nice security job for this freedom!
    You better believe it baby!
    Be kind Charles, many residents of NY have never heard of the US Constitution.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Correct.

    But choosing to violate a federal law - either because you think it is unconstitutional or you are just bent on breaking laws - is much different from carrying a firearm in violation of the law while not knowing it of the law.

    Knowledge is so much better than ignorance regardless of the personal choices one makes.
    Ignorance of the law is a valid defense?
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Be kind Charles, many residents of NY have never heard of the US Constitution.
    The part of NY that borders VT are country folks. Pro gun. Upstate. Not NYC liberals who control the vote. The upstate residents are disenfranchised and have no ability to outnumber the city libs and dems. We understand perfectly but are powerless in numbers. What happens to NC as these people migrate? Residents of Southern states need be aware and concerned of this influx of NYC residents. They're coming by the thousands every year because they can't afford NYC. In the city a decent one bedroom apartment (small) is $3,500 per month. A lot of these bugs are lighting around Asheville, Hendersonville, Buncombe County. I went to look at some land and was unnerved a bit at the artsy, gay presence. Strong liberal leanings. My brother-in-law found a nice piece of land for us to split. I'm concerned these types will eventually turn the South into NYC.
    .
    Get the word out down there. A plague is coming slowly. It's called Northern liberalism.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    The part of NY that borders VT are country folks. Pro gun. Upstate. Not NYC liberals who control the vote. The upstate residents are disenfranchised and have no ability to outnumber the city libs and dems. We understand perfectly but are powerless in numbers. What happens to NC as these people migrate? Residents of Southern states need be aware and concerned of this influx of NYC residents. They're coming by the thousands every year because they can't afford NYC. In the city a decent one bedroom apartment (small) is $3,500 per month. A lot of these bugs are lighting around Asheville, Hendersonville, Buncombe County. I went to look at some land and was unnerved a bit at the artsy, gay presence. Strong liberal leanings. My brother-in-law found a nice piece of land for us to split. I'm concerned these types will eventually turn the South into NYC.
    .
    Get the word out down there. A plague is coming slowly. It's called Northern liberalism.
    Not news, and one enclave of Yankee's is even name in their honor, as just outside of Raleigh is Cary, which is really an acronym for Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  8. Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Post #11 is all fine and dandy - but you still might be typing it while in prison when the US Supreme Court disagrees with you on what is and is not Constitutional.
    Exactly.


    In Marbary v. Madison the Court declared that it is the final arbiter of what complies with the Constitution. It does not give individuals the right to pick and choose what laws, or parts of laws, are constitutional. To allow everyone to follow their own interpretations would be anarchy.

    “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]

    So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty”.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiet Observer View Post
    Exactly.


    In Marbary v. Madison the Court declared that it is the final arbiter of what complies with the Constitution. It does not give individuals the right to pick and choose what laws, or parts of laws, are constitutional. To allow everyone to follow their own interpretations would be anarchy.

    “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]

    So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty”.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137
    The Supreme Court also ruled that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress has no power to outlaw slavery in any territory (Dred Scott - 1857).

    Marbury himself went up against the person known by many as "The Father of the Constitution," and SCOTUS ruled itself power that Madison, on behalf of The People, did not see fit to grant the Court when he fathered that once-austere document.

    Marbury may have indeed been the first constitutional usurpation by the Supreme Court, but whether first or beyond, it was certainly the most egregious up to that point (1803), even if the reasons that's true weren't so apparent or obvious as they are now, two centuries hence, after SCOTUS has relied on judicial review and their self-appointed authority to decide such issues as whether or not the words "shall not be infringed" actually mean what they say. The very paragraph that proves the veracity of my statement here is quoted above, "So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty”. There is not one single passage within the Constitution, Federal Papers, quotes from Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton or any other Founder, letters or any other communication between writers or signers of the Constitution that would support that statutes written after ratification of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights could ever be the "duty" of SCOTUS to rule superiority of over the plain language of those documents.

    Marbury made the language of the Constitution moot for all practical purposes. To cite it and hold it up as some Holy Grail of American Jurisprudence two centuries later is to admit to being either ignorant or supportive of its usurpative and deleterious effects on natural and fundamental human liberty.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. So then who is to decide what legislation and actions comply with the Constitution?

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiet Observer View Post
    So then who is to decide what legislation and actions comply with the Constitution?
    Upon review of your link, I realized I was wrong, but also realized you were wrong. Marbury was a usurpation, but not for the words written in Marshall's ruling that you first quoted and I responded to. Those words that you quoted were rejected later in the ruling specifically because they were not compliant with the Constitution. They were written from a sort of "Devil's advocate" perspective, and defeated by the true constitutional argument that the Constitution reigns supreme over that of statutes. It is the dichotomy of the Marbury Ruling that it both established judicial review as a way for SCOTUS to involve itself in every piece of legislation that came out of Congress, a power Madison and the rest of the Founders denied SCOTUS, and it ruled also that any law or rule repugnant to the Constitution is void, a premise which is awash throughout the Constitution and of course, was correct. In any case, the words you quoted from Marbury were rejected by Marshall as having any legal or constitutional validity. Read from where you began quoting to the end of the ruling and you'll see what I mean.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast