Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

    So today was the final day of Olympic College (a community college I attend in Bremerton, Washington)'s "First Amendment Forum" This is slightly off topic, but still relevant to us (IMHO) and is somewhat state specific.

    Scroll down to the final paragraph if you want to skip the background and go straight to the point, but I encourage you to read the whole deal.

    Basically in 2007 an anti-abortion group showed up on OC's main campus in Bremerton, they carry these signs with graphic anti abortion images and messages (I'll inbed one here *Warning, Graphic* well this caused quite a stir on campus, and led to the campus severely restricting free speech, however after the group threatened a lawsuit and after winning a "Schrammie" from Ken Schram, the College reversed because they're a public campus and now allow free speech on the grounds of the campus. Well after a couple years they stopped coming, then came back last month, and it caused such a stir that the Campus Multi-Cultural club put on a weeks worth of meetings in the conference room open to all students and members of the public, these public forums hosted a guest pane of speakers including Security Director Ed Call and Journalism Professor Mike Prince and some other campus big wig whose name I can't remember. The purpose was to inform students about these people's first amendment right to protest abortion and to explain the first amendment to college students and to have a discussion, this was moderated by the student president of the Multicultural club and audience members would ask questions or make comments for the panel to respond.


    Well after Professor Prince explained the SCOTUS Miller Test to determine obscenity and that obscenity was not protected speech (Miller v. California), so a bunch of students began asking why the college couldn't ban the anti-abortion images as Obscenity. So I got up and explained that the Miller test only applied under the 1st amendment, I then cited State v. Henry a case in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that obscenity was protected by the Oregon Constitution and that Washington's Article 1 Section 5 constitutional protections were worded very closely to Oregon's. I then concluded that obscenity might have a looser definition then in Washington. THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight" Well I showed up a second day and made the same argument when Ed Call wasn't on the panel to a better reception.

    Anyway THE POINT IN ALL THIS IS after the end of todays Forum the president of the Multicultural club said due to the success of the first amendment forums (hundreds of students came to the forum days) They were thinking about having another forum on other constitutional rights, he said he was specifically looking to discuss the 2nd and 4th amendments, and asked If I might be interested in Sitting on the panel! Anyway I don't know when or if it will even happen, but what do you think? Should I accept such an offer? and if yes, and I actually am allowed to be seated, will someone here mind reviewing any notes I make to be ready... like I said this is tentative, nothing is scheduled and it may not happen. but still the idea is fun to me...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Regular Member 911Grunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pierce County, WA
    Posts
    46
    go for it!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

    I definitely think you should go for it.

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    If not you, then who?

    You generally know what you are talking about, which seems to put you a notch or two above Security Director Call.

    You seem to have been able to make your point and pass on what might have been otherwise boring information without getting shut down by the panel or heckled off the mic by the audience. Amazing feat, all things considered.

    From your posts I do not get the impression that you have any axe to grind. (Standing up against those actively seeking to take away rights is not grinding an axe.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If not you, then who?
    The Complacent American sits and watches as life goes by, then complains about the status of the world. A Citizen will actively seek for Citizenship is a verb. You may have an opportunity to educate others in a positive way.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  6. #6
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

    I say congratulations and try to push another for the fifth amendment also. One far too many don't know how to take advantage of.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  7. #7
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Consider this a great opportunity if it does happen...and remember the WA constitution Article 1 Section 7, and Article 1 section 24, absolutely apply to our state, no matter what someone else might think...have WA appeals and supreme court decisions ready to back yourself up.

    You might remind your WA constitution distractor that our BoR can be MORE restrictive on government, but not less, and it is also very relevant.

    For the 2nd amendment arguments, and state constitution applicability arguments, you might like to pocket the Idaho state supreme court decision...in re Brickly, 1902, http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html. This is Idaho, but you can use it to show, that state supreme court decisions apply to that particular state, based on that particular state's constitution and laws. BTW: Idaho is/was and will continue to be, and traditional OC state...no matter what the US Supreme Court thinks/says, as will WA state based on Article 1 Section 7.

    Good state constitutional power arguments can be made on the WA prohibition on road block stops of automobiles for license and DUI checks. US Supreme court decisions (Prouse V Delaware) state that Random stops for license checks are illegal, but roadblock stops (like for DUI checks) are not. Our state Supreme court threw out a law that allowed the WSP to do roadblock license/DUI check stops based on Article 1 Section 7 of our WA state constitution. (sorry I don't have the case. maybe Rapgood might??? This was quite a few years ago.)

    Go for it, prepare for it, and good luck!
    Last edited by hermannr; 11-10-2012 at 02:20 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Go for it, I am sure that many forums members would not mind helping review your notes.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Boomboy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    140

    Take that ball and RUN!

    Do us proud, EMN!
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    EMN there are t things that you must be very clear on when you speak
    1. Have ALL of your facts
    2. DO NOT represent OCDO unless you have been vetted by the owners of this forum.
    You represent yourself and (fortunately or unfortunately) as the case may be, by association, all the rest of the oc community.
    Be careful of what you say.

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    EMN there are t things that you must be very clear on when you speak
    1. Have ALL of your facts
    2. DO NOT represent OCDO unless you have been vetted by the owners of this forum.
    You represent yourself and (fortunately or unfortunately) as the case may be, by association, all the rest of the oc community.
    Be careful of what you say.
    No I wouldn't bring up being a forum member or claim to speak for an OC community, I was only wondering if this does happen which there's a fair chance it may not, if people here wouldn't mind vetting any information I would use as sources. I would never claim to represent this forum or it's members in anyway. That annoys me when people claim to represent me that I never told or asked to...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Go for it.

    Learn the tactics of the anti-rights crowd. And, learn the arguments.

    For example, the anti-abortion argument worked out. But, it was a little bit of luck that state case law was on your side. You want to persuade people, to shift their thinking. Winning by having the bigger hammer in the form of winning case law is not persuasion. Just because lots of people attended doesn't mean it was successful--unless attendance is the end goal. Success is persuading people to the side of liberty.

    You probably have the 2nd Amendment arguments down pretty well. The Fourth Amendment could be a loser if you let yourself be drawn into a case law argument by advocates for strong government. Especially if there are any stong-government law students in the crowd or on the panel. The courts have been chipping away at the 4A for decades. You want to educate yourself fast on the history and fundamental premises of the 4A to undercut that stuff.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-11-2012 at 06:32 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So today was the final day of Olympic College (a community college I attend in Bremerton, Washington)'s "First Amendment Forum" This is slightly off topic, but still relevant to us (IMHO) and is somewhat state specific.

    Scroll down to the final paragraph if you want to skip the background and go straight to the point, but I encourage you to read the whole deal.

    Basically in 2007 an anti-abortion group showed up on OC's main campus in Bremerton, they carry these signs with graphic anti abortion images and messages (I'll inbed one here *Warning, Graphic* well this caused quite a stir on campus, and led to the campus severely restricting free speech, however after the group threatened a lawsuit and after winning a "Schrammie" from Ken Schram, the College reversed because they're a public campus and now allow free speech on the grounds of the campus. Well after a couple years they stopped coming, then came back last month, and it caused such a stir that the Campus Multi-Cultural club put on a weeks worth of meetings in the conference room open to all students and members of the public, these public forums hosted a guest pane of speakers including Security Director Ed Call and Journalism Professor Mike Prince and some other campus big wig whose name I can't remember. The purpose was to inform students about these people's first amendment right to protest abortion and to explain the first amendment to college students and to have a discussion, this was moderated by the student president of the Multicultural club and audience members would ask questions or make comments for the panel to respond.


    Well after Professor Prince explained the SCOTUS Miller Test to determine obscenity and that obscenity was not protected speech (Miller v. California), so a bunch of students began asking why the college couldn't ban the anti-abortion images as Obscenity. So I got up and explained that the Miller test only applied under the 1st amendment, I then cited State v. Henry a case in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that obscenity was protected by the Oregon Constitution and that Washington's Article 1 Section 5 constitutional protections were worded very closely to Oregon's. I then concluded that obscenity might have a looser definition then in Washington. THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight" Well I showed up a second day and made the same argument when Ed Call wasn't on the panel to a better reception.

    Anyway THE POINT IN ALL THIS IS after the end of todays Forum the president of the Multicultural club said due to the success of the first amendment forums (hundreds of students came to the forum days) They were thinking about having another forum on other constitutional rights, he said he was specifically looking to discuss the 2nd and 4th amendments, and asked If I might be interested in Sitting on the panel! Anyway I don't know when or if it will even happen, but what do you think? Should I accept such an offer? and if yes, and I actually am allowed to be seated, will someone here mind reviewing any notes I make to be ready... like I said this is tentative, nothing is scheduled and it may not happen. but still the idea is fun to me...
    I say go for it.

    Please let me know if they are ever going to hold one on the 9th and 10th Amendments. After reading
    Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight"
    I think those would be interesting to observe and see just how Socialist er Security Director Call responds to them.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    You shold be preparing you lecture now. If you do not use it on this occasion you will use it in the next. You seem like a proactive kind of guy. Get your argument down, get a tutor from the debate club. Get verbally armed and ready for combat. Be cool, do not get excited and be accurate. That is always a death note for your argument.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  15. #15
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight"
    The federal constitution only steps into the matter (via the 14th amendment) when a state has less protection of a given right than the federal constitution does. If a state has greater protection, then the 14th amendment does not care. After all, there is no protected right under the federal constitution to censor someone else's freedom of expression, therefore the feds won't step in under the 14th amendment to protect a college's "right" to censor someone.

    At what point does a municipal corporation or other quasi-government body effectively step across the legal line and attempt to secede from the state?

  16. #16
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    The federal constitution only steps into the matter (via the 14th amendment) when a state has less protection of a given right than the federal constitution does. If a state has greater protection, then the 14th amendment does not care. After all, there is no protected right under the federal constitution to censor someone else's freedom of expression, therefore the feds won't step in under the 14th amendment to protect a college's "right" to censor someone.

    At what point does a municipal corporation or other quasi-government body effectively step across the legal line and attempt to secede from the state?
    That's an interesting point, I wonder how that would work with grand juries, If I'm indicted by a judge as is done in WA, can i challenge the indictment on the grounds that a judge indictment is less protective then a grand jury? hmmmm
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  17. #17
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's an interesting point, I wonder how that would work with grand juries, If I'm indicted by a judge as is done in WA, can i challenge the indictment on the grounds that a judge indictment is less protective then a grand jury? hmmmm
    I bet that security director might try it. After all, state laws don't exist because we have federal supremacy.
    Last edited by Difdi; 11-12-2012 at 05:22 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So today was the final day of Olympic College (a community college I attend in Bremerton, Washington)'s "First Amendment Forum" This is slightly off topic, but still relevant to us (IMHO) and is somewhat state specific.

    I then concluded that obscenity might have a looser definition then in Washington. THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight" Well I showed up a second day and made the same argument when Ed Call wasn't on the panel to a better reception.
    And he's responsible for security? What planet is this guy living on?

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's an interesting point, I wonder how that would work with grand juries, If I'm indicted by a judge as is done in WA, can i challenge the indictment on the grounds that a judge indictment is less protective then a grand jury? hmmmm
    Close. Actually, judges don't indict in Washington. That would be beyond their authority. Complaints and Informations are brought by a prosecuting attorney. Indictments are made by grand juries and grand juries in Washington are formed only when voted for and called by a majority of judges in that jurisdiction. This is very rare in Washington (I've never seen one). And, although it's the judges who vote to call for the formation of a grand jury, it is the grand jury that hands down indictments; not the judges.

    That said, grand juries are routinely called for duty in federal courts. There, we see them all the time.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    And he's responsible for security? What planet is this guy living on?.
    Well his spiel also involved him saying that state law cannot be less restrictive then federal, only more restrictive, and that cities could be more restrictive then state law but not less.

    Which is a vast (and inaccurate) simplification of how it actually works, well at least to the best my knowledge. the way I understand it, State constitutional protections can be more restrictive on government then the federal constitution at least involving how that states officers conduct themselves. for instance the saga of Sitz v. Michigan showed that the federal courts can rule that an action doesn't violate the federal constitution, but when remanded a state court can still rule their state constitution is more protective. and with statutory law Printz v. US and New York v. US the supreme court ruled that the federal government cannot mandate state and local officials to enforce federal law. so I presume state law can be less restrictive but with the understanding adherence to state law is not a defense in federal court.

    This was the exact argument I made to counter that claim.

    Do you believe I was wrong in any of that?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Regular Member Boomboy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well his spiel also involved him saying that state law cannot be less restrictive then federal, only more restrictive, and that cities could be more restrictive then state law but not less.

    Which is a vast (and inaccurate) simplification of how it actually works, well at least to the best my knowledge. the way I understand it, State constitutional protections can be more restrictive on government then the federal constitution at least involving how that states officers conduct themselves. for instance the saga of Sitz v. Michigan showed that the federal courts can rule that an action doesn't violate the federal constitution, but when remanded a state court can still rule their state constitution is more protective. and with statutory law Printz v. US and New York v. US the supreme court ruled that the federal government cannot mandate state and local officials to enforce federal law. so I presume state law can be less restrictive but with the understanding adherence to state law is not a defense in federal court.

    This was the exact argument I made to counter that claim.

    Do you believe I was wrong in any of that?
    Well, our recent ballot initiative that passed regarding the adult recreational use of marijuana is a perfect example of state law being less restrictive than federal law. While it may be against federal law, without state LEO to enforce it, the Feds are pretty much screwed. They just don't have the numbers of officers required to effectively enforce that law in one state, much less 5, 10, or 50.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    Well, our recent ballot initiative that passed regarding the adult recreational use of marijuana is a perfect example of state law being less restrictive than federal law. While it may be against federal law, without state LEO to enforce it, the Feds are pretty much screwed. They just don't have the numbers of officers required to effectively enforce that law in one state, much less 5, 10, or 50.
    Until they put a Viper (their word) squad on the interstate to interdict (their word for pretext) terrorists with random suspicionless searches.

    And, you still have the border patrol setting up roadblocks up to 100 miles from the sea or an international border.

    And, the coast guard bugging boaters.

    You're right, they're gonna have a hard time; but its not going to be a cake walk for some of the rest of us.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well his spiel also involved him saying that state law cannot be less restrictive then federal, only more restrictive, and that cities could be more restrictive then state law but not less.

    Which is a vast (and inaccurate) simplification of how it actually works, well at least to the best my knowledge. the way I understand it, State constitutional protections can be more restrictive on government then the federal constitution at least involving how that states officers conduct themselves. for instance the saga of Sitz v. Michigan showed that the federal courts can rule that an action doesn't violate the federal constitution, but when remanded a state court can still rule their state constitution is more protective. and with statutory law Printz v. US and New York v. US the supreme court ruled that the federal government cannot mandate state and local officials to enforce federal law. so I presume state law can be less restrictive but with the understanding adherence to state law is not a defense in federal court.

    This was the exact argument I made to counter that claim.

    Do you believe I was wrong in any of that?
    For those powers given (said better, are specifically reserved) to the Federal Government by our United States Constitution, the Security Director is correct.
    But what really is specifically reserved to the Feds?

    The answer to that question is mostly contained within Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
    with an explanation of what Congress is limited to contained in Article 1 Section 9 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html
    and what the Several Sovereign States are restricted from in Article 1 Section 10 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html

    And again, going to the Bill Of Rights, the 9th and 10th further restrict the Feds from imposing their will upon the Sovereign States or the People themselves. But so many People no longer look at those two amendments having been convinced by a plenitude of those who think like that Security Director constantly renforcing mistaken views of how things are supposed to be.

    A good number of County Sheriffs have failed to understand their actual authority and for fear of whatever or in their lust for power have accepted honorary Federal Marshal Authority (putting them under Federal Thumbs), allow the Feds to walk all over the Citizens they have sworn to protect and serve. There are a few who have stood up to the Feds and told them that any attempting to serve a process which violates any of the Amendments to our Constitution, will find themselves in jail and those they were acting against would be free. Because of that, even IRS actions against individuals in a couple of States have ground to a near halt!
    Here is a link to an article about Wyoming Sheriffs doing just that. http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09...ediate-arrest/
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  23. #23
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    Well, our recent ballot initiative that passed regarding the adult recreational use of marijuana is a perfect example of state law being less restrictive than federal law. While it may be against federal law, without state LEO to enforce it, the Feds are pretty much screwed. They just don't have the numbers of officers required to effectively enforce that law in one state, much less 5, 10, or 50.
    What federal law? In 1919, the 18th amendment was ratified. This granted Congress the authority to pass national legislation to prohibit drinking alcohol. Without the amendment, the ensuing Volstead Act would have been unconstitutional. The federal government had exactly the same degree of supremacy in this area of the law in 1918 that they do today (9th amendment, 10th amendment, 14th amendment, supremacy clause, commerce clause). And they needed the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

    The 21st amendment returned the authority to decide whether an intoxicant was legal or not to the states, as it had been prior to the 18th. The 21st did so by wholly repealing the 18th. The 21st did however affirm that moving a legal product in one state to a state where it was illegal would be illegal, and since such a thing is by definition interstate commerce, the federal government has authority there.

    The Controlled Substances Act (and other anti-drug legislation at the federal level) existed in a constitutional gray area so long as all states prohibited those substances as well. As soon as any state legalizes any substance prohibited by the CSA, that gray area evaporates leaving only black and white behind. The federal government simply lacks the authority to criminalize marijuana against the wishes of a state within the borders of that state.

    Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code make it a federal crime for a public official (a police officer or DEA agent qualifies as such) to use their official authority to deny a citizen their rights. Even if federal agents are not bound by state laws, they are absolutely bound by federal laws. While the idea of a lone federal agent trying to serve an invalid federal warrant while unarmed is amusing, it's unlikely to happen. Which means that just about any attempt by the feds to unconstitutionally enforce the CSA in Washington would result in a conspiracy against rights under color of law with threat of dangerous weapons. Under 18USC241, that's punishable by execution or life in prison.

    Granted, getting any police agency to police itself against its own best interests is probably futile. But it shines a wholly different legal light on shooting at federal agents during a marijuana raid, eh?

  24. #24
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    What federal law? In 1919, the 18th amendment was ratified. This granted Congress the authority to pass national legislation to prohibit drinking alcohol. Without the amendment, the ensuing Volstead Act would have been unconstitutional. The federal government had exactly the same degree of supremacy in this area of the law in 1918 that they do today (9th amendment, 10th amendment, 14th amendment, supremacy clause, commerce clause). And they needed the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

    The 21st amendment returned the authority to decide whether an intoxicant was legal or not to the states, as it had been prior to the 18th. The 21st did so by wholly repealing the 18th. The 21st did however affirm that moving a legal product in one state to a state where it was illegal would be illegal, and since such a thing is by definition interstate commerce, the federal government has authority there.

    The Controlled Substances Act (and other anti-drug legislation at the federal level) existed in a constitutional gray area so long as all states prohibited those substances as well. As soon as any state legalizes any substance prohibited by the CSA, that gray area evaporates leaving only black and white behind. The federal government simply lacks the authority to criminalize marijuana against the wishes of a state within the borders of that state.

    Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code make it a federal crime for a public official (a police officer or DEA agent qualifies as such) to use their official authority to deny a citizen their rights. Even if federal agents are not bound by state laws, they are absolutely bound by federal laws. While the idea of a lone federal agent trying to serve an invalid federal warrant while unarmed is amusing, it's unlikely to happen. Which means that just about any attempt by the feds to unconstitutionally enforce the CSA in Washington would result in a conspiracy against rights under color of law with threat of dangerous weapons. Under 18USC241, that's punishable by execution or life in prison.

    Granted, getting any police agency to police itself against its own best interests is probably futile. But it shines a wholly different legal light on shooting at federal agents during a marijuana raid, eh?
    I am not disagreeing with you. I do wish to bring out something that a lot might not even think about. Why was the 21st amendment required? There were States that allowed alcohol before prohibition that felt the US Government was infringing on their Sovereign rights and there were States that passed legislation after prohibition (the 18th was ratified) in direct conflict with the 18th Amendment and challenged the Feds to prove they couldn't. Back then County Sheriffs understood their power in the scheme of things and the Feds were not able to BS their way around like they do in the majority of States today. The 21st Amendment was the only way to prevent another Civil War.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

Posting Permissions

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