Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: If one says you must follow a state law that violates the 2nd amendment then...

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    If one says you must follow a state law that violates the 2nd amendment then...

    Is one advocating breaking the law?

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    I would lean towards no. because they are advocating abiding by a law in which is probably very specific. whereas violating the 2A would need some form of case law to support the previously mentioned law being deemed a violation of the 2A. if a previous case law exists, then I don't know how to answer. if no previous case law exists though, then it would be a decision for the courts.

    IE: NY's new AWB. it heavily violates the 2A, and there are several previous SCOTUS cases indirectly related that state it as being unconstitutional and violating the 2A. so in this case, yes, I believe anyone supporting NY's new gun ban is advocating breaking the law. because no matter what you do, you're breaking A law, directly or indirectly

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Is one advocating breaking the law?
    Would one be in violation of the state law? Yes. However, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land - therefore it follows that all State laws must be in compliance with the Constitution in order to be legally enforceable. Just my thoughts. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  4. #4
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Would one be in violation of the state law? Yes. However, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land - therefore it follows that all State laws must be in compliance with the Constitution in order to be legally enforceable. Just my thoughts. Pax...
    yes, that is true. but what one needs to understand is the various levels of government, and specifically law enforcement. police work for the town/state. they are responsible for enforcing town/state laws. if a state law is unconstitutional, it will be at the "discretion" of the cop on whether to enforce that law or not. and if they do enforce that law, it passes to judicial; town/state courts for prosecuting under that law, and they have "discretion" on whether it can be prosecuted and convicted.

    it's a world of butthurt with too many possible outcomes, most of which are not very good for at least 1 person involved

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    yes, that is true. but what one needs to understand is the various levels of government, and specifically law enforcement. police work for the town/state. they are responsible for enforcing town/state laws. if a state law is unconstitutional, it will be at the "discretion" of the cop on whether to enforce that law or not. and if they do enforce that law, it passes to judicial; town/state courts for prosecuting under that law, and they have "discretion" on whether it can be prosecuted and convicted.

    it's a world of butthurt with too many possible outcomes, most of which are not very good for at least 1 person involved
    The OP's question was quite simple -
    If one says you must follow a state law that violates the 2nd amendment then...
    Is one advocating breaking the law?
    The equally unadorned answer is - Yes. They are advocating breaking the Supreme Law, in favor of some batsh*t local ordinance. The rest is just conjecture on the ramifications of failing to obey that State law should you be accosted by a LEO. However, there was no request for the "what if's" in the original question, so in the interest of brevity (and to avoid the quicksands of investigating legal repercussions) I chose to be succinct. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Is one advocating breaking the law?
    I would say no. While we might say "the Constitution is the 'Supreme law of of the Land'" it's not a "law" in the traditional sense. It's a restriction placed on the government concerning what that gov can/can't do. As such, while the gov might be breaking the rules that govern it, they aren't advocating you to break the law. And while they might try to say that non-compliance is breaking the law, an unConstitutional law is null and void the moment it is signed and as such you aren't breaking the law should you not follow it (though you have to be prepared to fight it in court).

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    No. But truth is no defense in the Empire of Lies. Under Miller, the federal government cannot ban or even register full autos, yet they do both. Under Heller and Mcdonald, making necessary inferences on what is "common", no level of government can severely restrict sem-automatic firearms or magazines. No one can say magazines holding up to 30 rounds aren't "common". One could make an argument that magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not "common".
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    No. But truth is no defense in the Empire of Lies. Under Miller, the federal government cannot ban or even register full autos, yet they do both. Under Heller and Mcdonald, making necessary inferences on what is "common", no level of government can severely restrict sem-automatic firearms or magazines. No one can say magazines holding up to 30 rounds aren't "common". One could make an argument that magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not "common".
    I think that the current SCOTUS has muddied up our rights ... I want access to the same arms that the gov'ts will point at me ... they clearly see these arms as having value

  9. #9
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that the current SCOTUS has muddied up our rights ... I want access to the same arms that the gov'ts will point at me ... they clearly see these arms as having value
    Yeah, neocons have such a hard on for Scalia, not sure why since he's anti-freedom. The guy through us under the bus on full auto's, directly contradicting Miller in the process. His "logic": full auto's are nearly banned, therefore law abiding citizens are not likely to own them, therefore they're not protected.

    Luckily, semi-auto is far more effective in any type of gun fight.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  10. #10
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Is one advocating breaking the law?
    http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
    I beg anyone to find anywhere in the Constitution that says that the courts (including the SCOTUS) are the ONLY and final arbiters of the Constitutionality of a legislative act.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    No. But truth is no defense in the Empire of Lies. Under Miller, the federal government cannot ban or even register full autos, yet they do both. Under Heller and Mcdonald, making necessary inferences on what is "common", no level of government can severely restrict sem-automatic firearms or magazines. No one can say magazines holding up to 30 rounds aren't "common". One could make an argument that magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not "common".
    I am not sure that Miller even says that it has to be weapons that are commonly held by only the general public...I would suggest that it covers ALL arms that are in common use.

    From US v Miller:
    "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
    Last edited by carolina guy; 02-12-2013 at 10:36 PM.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I would lean towards no. because they are advocating abiding by a law in which is probably very specific. whereas violating the 2A would need some form of case law to support the previously mentioned law being deemed a violation of the 2A. if a previous case law exists, then I don't know how to answer. if no previous case law exists though, then it would be a decision for the courts.

    IE: NY's new AWB. it heavily violates the 2A, and there are several previous SCOTUS cases indirectly related that state it as being unconstitutional and violating the 2A. so in this case, yes, I believe anyone supporting NY's new gun ban is advocating breaking the law. because no matter what you do, you're breaking A law, directly or indirectly
    I am not sure they are "breaking a law" since there is no law, other than the 2nd Amendment regarding this.

    I would suggest that the lawmakers, any law enforcement officers and court officials that try to enforce the blatantly Unconstitutional act of NY are in violation of their collective oaths and should be removed from office.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I am not sure that Miller even says that it has to be weapons that are commonly held by only the general public...I would suggest that it covers ALL arms that are in common use.
    Miller examined the question with a question: does the device have value in a military sense? Almost all arms do ...

  14. #14
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Miller examined the question with a question: does the device have value in a military sense? Almost all arms do ...
    The government attorney's even argued that the 2A only really covered "military-type" weapons for use in the "militia". Note, they did not say "military-style".

    The military even teaches the use of HANDS as weapons during basic training...
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4
    Any law that violates the original constitution, shall be aborgated by the citizens and ignored. If the constitution says I can bear arms. And my state says no you can not, I'll still do it and fight my battle in court.

  16. #16
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by BerettaOC View Post
    Any law that violates the original constitution, shall be aborgated by the citizens and ignored. If the constitution says I can bear arms. And my state says no you can not, I'll still do it and fight my battle in court.
    +1 And that is all that the founders really hoped would happen...an educated citizen makes a choice to ignore null acts.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I would suggest that the lawmakers, any law enforcement officers and court officials that try to enforce the blatantly Unconstitutional act of NY are in violation of their collective oaths and should be removed from office.
    I couldn't agree more. but then on to the next issue of HOW to remove them from office. there are many ways to go about it. but who will step up to the plate and enact at least one of the many possible methods?
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

Posting Permissions

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