8 new gun control bills introduced yesterday

[fd15k]

I would not say "I know" the government is not going to pass a bill. Heck I am waiting to see what the new Portland Mayor Charlie Hales is going to do.

Trying to pass and even passing is not the same as enforcing. I probably would not exaggerate saying there are probably 100,000 laws that either violate, or are likely in violation of the Constitution. Reasons why they still exist would be

a) they are not enforced, so they can't be challenged
b) they haven't been enforced, so they couldn't be challenged
c) they are currently being challenged

Note that once a law is overturned, and a similar law is created which is still in violation, legislators can be held in contempt and arrested by US Marshals

 

[Father of four]

He didn't define it. The problem is that the liberals don't believe in the second amendment. I could easily see them trying to pass anything they can get through and letting the supreme court sort it out later.

Sorta like a cop or a D.A in a case against a suspect.

 

[drew]

I haven't tried open carrying in Portland, but I know Gray Peterson has tried. Do you know who that is ?

Reminded me of a newspaper article from a couple years ago.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/open_carry_gun_advocates_not_v.html?mobRedir=false

 

[fd15k]

He didn't define it. The problem is that the liberals don't believe in the second amendment. I could easily see them trying to pass anything they can get through and letting the supreme court sort it out later.

US Supreme Court has US Marshal Service at their disposal. There won't be "sort it out later" if the law is clearly in violation of the Constitution (2A).

 

[Father of four]

Note that once a law is overturned, and a similar law is created which is still in violation, legislators can be held in contempt and arrested by US Marshals

Ever heard of a snow balls chance in hell?

 

[fd15k]

Ever heard of a snow balls chance in hell?

Why do you think Chicago's mayor could not ignore Supreme Court's decision ? What do you think would happen to the mayor if he did ignore it ? Sure he can try to make stuff difficult, but that's where the "likely in violation" part comes in, and further challenges become possible. So yeah, think about it for a moment.

 

[Father of four]

US Supreme Court has US Marshal Service at their disposal. There won't be "sort it out later" if the law is clearly in violation of the Constitution (2A).

Well I for one think that Obamacare is unconstitutional, but what did the supreme do? Violated the Constitution in my view.

 

[Father of four]

Why do you think Chicago's mayor could not ignore Supreme Court's decision ? What do you think would happen to the mayor if he did ignore it ? Sure he can try to make stuff difficult, but that's where the "likely in violation" part comes in, and further challenges become possible. So yeah, think about it for a moment.

Well, I seem to remember the supremes stating that it was a right for an American citizen to own a firearm, that it was afforded to them under the 2nd Amendment. At the same time Chicago had a ban on firearms? Seems to violate your reasoning.

 

[Father of four]

Why do you think Chicago's mayor could not ignore Supreme Court's decision ?

Edit...

 

[fd15k]

Well I for one think that Obamacare is unconstitutional, but what did the supreme do? Violated the Constitution in my view.

The way I understand our constitutional law, something can be deemed as unconstitutional only by SCOTUS. Until then we can refer to it as "possibly unconstitutional", "likely unconstitutional", etc... When the SCOTUS does the opposite, we clearly know that something is in fact constitutional. Life is much easier when you establish a baseline, and reduce the number of variables in your arguments.

 

[Father of four]

The way I understand our constitutional law, something can be deemed as unconstitutional only by SCOTUS. Until then we can refer to it as "possibly unconstitutional", "likely unconstitutional", etc... When the SCOTUS does the opposite, we clearly know that something is in fact constitutional. Life is much easier when you establish a baseline, and reduce the number of variables in your arguments.

My baseline is...We the people. We should all read the Declaration on Independence again, often. It clearly states who should have the last word. We the people, not the supreme. The supremes should rule by what We think is constitutional. Not them alone.

 

[drew]

Well, I seem to remember the supremes stating that it was a right for an American citizen to own a firearm, that it was afforded to them under the 2nd Amendment. At the same time Chicago had a ban on firearms? Seems to violate your reasoning.

Chicago has been losing federal cases for a couple years. They get to keep writing checks to the SAF while their laws are repealed on court. They are fighting and losing. They are trying to keep laws that are contradictory to the SCOTUS decisions and the courts aren't letting them.

 

[fd15k]

Well, I seem to remember the supremes stating that it was a right for an American citizen to own a firearm, that it was afforded to them under the 2nd Amendment. At the same time Chicago had a ban on firearms? Seems to violate your reasoning.

That is incorrect.

Originally Bill of Rights, including Second Amendment, was a restraint against the Federal Government only. As such, regardless of what the meaning of the Amendment was (individual vs militia, etc), it did not restraint states and municipal governments. So if a city wanted to ban firearm ownership and/or carry, there were no barriers for that except possibly for the state constitution of where the city was located.

When the 14th Amendment was passed, restraints in the Bill of Rights were extended to the state and local governments as well. So at that point the interpretation of the Amendment would matter, dictating whether certain prohibitions are allowed or disallowed. Unfortunately shortly after its passage, 14th Amendment was crippled by the Supreme Court decision in the Slaughterhouse cases. Which removed the restraints in the Bill of Rights from the states and local governments.

After that individual amendments were extended to apply to the states and local governments on a case by case basis. Second Amendment was the last one not to be extended. So until 2008's decision, there was no Second Amendment restraint against city of Chicago, thus a ban on handguns was not in the violation of the Constitution.

ok ?

 

[Father of four]

Chicago has been losing federal cases for a couple years. They get to keep writing checks to the SAF while their laws are repealed on court. They are fighting and losing. They are trying to keep laws that are contradictory to the SCOTUS decisions and the courts aren't letting them.

Very good for the people of Chicago. But that does not mean that the guys who are in power want pass some more... "sort it out later" laws.

 

[fd15k]

My baseline is...We the people. We should all read the Declaration on Independence again, often. It clearly states who should have the last word. We the people, not the supreme. The supremes should rule by what We think is constitutional. Not them alone.

You need to understand that you, people, have the last word. But that word is not to have anything you like, any way you like. Instead that word has to be casted via appropriate frameworks established in this Republic.

- representative voting
- direct voting (referendums)
- jury nullification
- litigation
- constitutional amendments

 

[Father of four]

You need to understand that you, people, have the last word. But that word is not to have anything you like, any way you like. Instead that word has to be casted via appropriate frameworks established in this Republic.

- representative voting
- direct voting (referendums)
- jury nullification
- litigation
- constitutional amendments

Unless We the People change Our minds about the whole governmental thing. Its a tough pill to swallow but here it is...

The Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them...

 

[Father of four]

I think for far too long We The People forget exactly who should be in charge. We the People.

By The People and for The People or by the government and for the government?

 

[fd15k]

I think for far too long We The People forget exactly who should be in charge. We the People.

By The People and for The People or by the government and for the government?

It would be an interesting topic over a beer, as in what would you want to change. I really doubt that you would be able to come up with anything better than we have right now. Political philosophers have been working on that for hundreds of years. And that is leaving aside all the practical aspects of such change. So yeah, since this is not a "over a beer conversation", I won't get too much more into it

 

[Father of four]

I for one am not saying change The Constitution. But reign in the government that we have now. In many ways the government is and continues to run around like a untamed child.

 

[Father of four]

Or an addict hooked on uncontrolled spending.