JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
2,946
Reactions
5,007
Since I've been bringing it up a bit, I think it would be fascinating to pull together a ballot measure that categorically bans - or retroactively punishes - politicians for pushing legislation that infringes on both State and Federal constitutions. Don't make it about guns, make it about holding politicians and elected officials financially accountable for infringing on rights.

It could be written as a single ballot issue, and I bet it could get signatures. The goal, of course, is to financial cripple these people for their gun grabs. But it can and should be used for broader infringements.
I think it'd be easy to write. I wonder how hard it would be to get groups to help fund it.
 
The punishment for any politician knowingly and willingly pushing legislation that infringes on Constitutionally protected rights should be public hanging in town square.
 
Another track would be to prohibit any law or State constitutional change from being enforceable (in any part) until all legal challenges have been resolved. In order to make this practical, the mere threat of enforcement will have to give "standing" to the plaintiff, and the elected officials who voted for it, or the organizers and donors to an initiative would have to be "joint and severable" liable for the legal costs of both sides expenses in fighting it out in court, should the plaintiffs prevail on any point.

It gives the opportunity to challenge existing legal powers without imposing hardships on the public.

There are some not-so-obvious points in this proposal. I welcome a discussion!
 
Colorado, Connecticut and New Mexico have already started paving the way, but be aware that most arguments against QI center around the way it is used to protect the police from law suits and penalties and seeing as how as a group we have trouble finding common ground with groups we have ANY disagreement with, I think it may be a bigger uphill battle than it needs to be


ETA: The one from New Mexico looks to be the gold standard at this point

 
What the notion of immunity from arrest for State and Federal legislators are based on; "
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. "

it seems that the bolded part is dependent on what the Courts decide to mean :rolleyes:

This is why people like Maxine Waters aren't arrested or placed under censure... because of this principle and because of the broad subjective interpretation of what "Treason, Felony and breach of peace" can be :rolleyes:


Edit. I do support enabling civil tort/suits against legislators for violating State and Federal Constitutions though..
 
What the notion of immunity from arrest for State and Federal legislators are based on; "
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. "

it seems that the bolded part is dependent on what the Courts decide to mean :rolleyes:

This is why people like Maxine Waters aren't arrested or placed under censure... because of this principle and because of the broad subjective interpretation of what "Treason, Felony and breach of peace" can be :rolleyes:


Edit. I do support enabling civil tort/suits against legislators for violating State and Federal Constitutions though..
That was also exactly the same argument that Lindsey Graham used to try and avoid questions about his interference in the Georgia elections, but that really isn't the issue with QI, this is a much better example of the problem


So the TL : DR on that is a officer shoots at a friendly dog because he's scared and hits a 10 year old boy less than 2 feet away from him and he is not held accountable because as the courts explicitly stated:

" Vickers was entitled to qualified immunity, just because no prior judicial decision involved "the unique facts of this case."

So just because there hadn't been a case where an officer shoot at a friendly dog after chasing a perp to a home that was totally unrelated to the chase and hit an innocent bystander kid in the leg and been convicted of it in that local area, the cop is free from facing charges

And that means we could have an elected politician on tape admitting they were doing something to doing something they knew was counter to the rules and Constitution and as long as no other politician in that local area with exactly the same circumstance had been convicted of doing the same thing and there was a more than reasonable belief that that politician KNEW about that case they would be immune from legal ramifications


Quote Reply
Report
 
The punishment for any politician knowingly and willingly pushing legislation that infringes on Constitutionally protected rights should be public hanging in town square.
With government subsidized popcorn for spectators
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top