• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

D.C. police chief to the public

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
"In a stunning reversal of traditional police advice against private citizens taking action in the midst of a crime, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier acknowledged times, and crimes, have changed and citizens — if they can — should “take down” active shooters in a segment scheduled during the "60 Minutes" broadcast."
http://www.examiner.com/article/d-c...n-active-shooters?CID=examiner_alerts_article

How in the heck is that going to work, when the average private person (resident & non-resident alike) cannot carry when out and about. :banghead:
i'm trying to work out if you actually believe that. A look at the Constitution might change your mind there
It is more than opinion/belief. It is a FACT. Do not carry a gun in Washington D.C. unless you have a magic talisman. They will drive the bus over you and then throw you under the jail.

The Constitution is but a minor impediment to DC's draconian laws. Having an empty shell casing can get you arrested.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...sts-with-empty-bullet-casings/article/2535216
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
It is more than opinion/belief. It is a FACT. Do not carry a gun in Washington D.C. unless you have a magic talisman. They will drive the bus over you and then throw you under the jail.

The Constitution is but a minor impediment to DC's draconian laws. Having an empty shell casing can get you arrested.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...sts-with-empty-bullet-casings/article/2535216

The Constitution usurps and as the case may be invalidates state law. This is my point.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
It is more than opinion/belief. It is a FACT. Do not carry a gun in Washington D.C. unless you have a magic talisman. They will drive the bus over you and then throw you under the jail.

The Constitution is but a minor impediment to DC's draconian laws. Having an empty shell casing can get you arrested.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...sts-with-empty-bullet-casings/article/2535216

The Constitution usurps and as the case may be invalidates state law. This is my point.
I well enough understand your point and the in-a-perfect-world it implies.

Surely you are not voluntering to be a test case.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
I well enough understand your point and the in-a-perfect-world it implies.

Surely you are not voluntering to be a test case.

On my own, no. But I would rally enough people to make it safe then march down the streets of DC Open Carrying with no permit whatsoever. I'm not stupid, I know full well one person would get taken out in a heartbeat. It's got to be done en masse. If this is done in the major cities with draconian 'laws' and done regularly, how soon before they realize We The People are in control? And no I am not advocating revolution, civil war or the overthrow of the government. Thats an illogical liberal comeback and is the infamous black and white fallacy. Either keep things as they are or blow the government up, neither of which make any sense at all.

Now I know all but Rule 15 but you have to admit you opened yourself right up to this by asking the question. Thanks for that :p
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Grapeshot

I well enough understand your point and the in-a-perfect-world it implies.

Surely you are not voluntering to be a test case.
On my own, no. But I would rally enough people to make it safe then march down the streets of DC Open Carrying with no permit whatsoever. I'm not stupid, I know full well one person would get taken out in a heartbeat. It's got to be done en masse. If this is done in the major cities with draconian 'laws' and done regularly, how soon before they realize We The People are in control? And no I am not advocating revolution, civil war or the overthrow of the government. Thats an illogical liberal comeback and is the infamous black and white fallacy. Either keep things as they are or blow the government up, neither of which make any sense at all.

Now I know all but Rule 15 but you have to admit you opened yourself right up to this by asking the question. Thanks for that :p
I did not ask a question, quite to the contrary.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
The Constitution usurps and as the case may be invalidates state law. This is my point.

In a perfect world, yeah, you're right. But this sure as hell ain't a perfect world. It was only relatively recently that Heller overturned what were absurdly overt 2A violations in DC and Chicago, and THAT took a SCOTUS ruling. I have a spent .40 casing on my keys as a decoration, and under DC law, if a cop saw it, I would be instantly arrested, prosecuted and as Grape said, thrown under the jail. It would be a BS case, and I could probably go all the way to SCOTUS to get it overturned, but that would take time, money and IF it happened, until then, I would still have a felony record and have to give up my firearms. You have to remember that Liberals don't give a tinkers damn about the constitution, except when it suits them and them alone.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
In a perfect world, yeah, you're right. But this sure as hell ain't a perfect world. It was only relatively recently that Heller overturned what were absurdly overt 2A violations in DC and Chicago, and THAT took a SCOTUS ruling. I have a spent .40 casing on my keys as a decoration, and under DC law, if a cop saw it, I would be instantly arrested, prosecuted and as Grape said, thrown under the jail. It would be a BS case, and I could probably go all the way to SCOTUS to get it overturned, but that would take time, money and IF it happened, until then, I would still have a felony record and have to give up my firearms. You have to remember that Liberals don't give a tinkers damn about the constitution, except when it suits them and them alone.

See this is the thrust of a whole wider issue from states nullifying federal gun laws to nullifying executive orders and more. Everyone from states to individual citizens seem to think they have to legislate a problem away. My point is that is never needed. Executive Order not constitutional? Ignore it. It's not law. It's not worth wasting time or effort over unless it's in defending a right that people wish to deny like the 2A. States waste time and effort nullifying laws about GFZ when in fact there are none save the ones private property owners choose. We really only need to ask 1 question. Is it Constitutional. If yes, obey. If not ignore. And this goes for individuals, counties, cities and states. The D.C Issue is just the tip of a very big Iceberg and an attitude of defeat by the citizens of this country
 

taxman

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
124
Location
Michigan
images


Normally I'd think a chief's public opinions were issued to her along with the general's stars on her shoulderboards. (they always seem to start the job as four star generals but never seem to get that final promotion to five star)

But in this case, Lanier has made some openly favorable statements towards self defense, in contradiction to both her own former statements and the current statements of the mayor:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/foghorn/d-c-mayor-refudont-like-guns/
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
images


Normally I'd think a chief's public opinions were issued to her along with the general's stars on her shoulderboards.

Hmmmm. You make a very good point.

I wonder whether, like Marine Gen. Smedley Butler*, she has seen the light. The city council has said nothing. There was nothing I saw that prompted her to even comment; its not like its a hot public issue in the district (District of Columbia).


*Smedley Butler was a well-decorated US Marine general officer who broke ranks and published an essay "War is a Racket" after he realized he'd spent his career fighting, not for freedom and the American Way, but for crony business interests in Central and South America. (Think: the Banana Wars). The essay is available on-line, in the public domain. Also, he put forward the Peace Amendment to constitutionally restrain the US government from creating and/or involving itself in foreign wars. Just for a taste, his proposed constitutional amendment, among other things, forbade the US navy from venturing more than 500 miles from the US mainland. Kinda hard to start a war or join one if the Navy cannot exceed 500 miles.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
We need one more short amendment, one that forces the literal interpretation(strict scrutiny) of all other amendments. Then maybe this BS will stop.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
See this is the thrust of a whole wider issue from states nullifying federal gun laws to nullifying executive orders and more. Everyone from states to individual citizens seem to think they have to legislate a problem away. My point is that is never needed. Executive Order not constitutional? Ignore it. It's not law. It's not worth wasting time or effort over unless it's in defending a right that people wish to deny like the 2A. States waste time and effort nullifying laws about GFZ when in fact there are none save the ones private property owners choose. We really only need to ask 1 question. Is it Constitutional. If yes, obey. If not ignore. And this goes for individuals, counties, cities and states. The D.C Issue is just the tip of a very big Iceberg and an attitude of defeat by the citizens of this country

To paraphrase the great Burgess Meredith, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other. Just because you don't think they are constitutional or just or whatever doesn't mean that they are null and void. You still have to pay attention to them. You can't just strap on your sidearm and take a stroll down PA ave. in DC without them busting you.

I hate it just as much as anyone, but the powers that be will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you cross them without the proper frame of legal protection in place. And THAT means legislation. Or armed revolution. Which do you think is more likely? You say there is an attitude of defeat... I say BS. If we're so defeated, why are so many of us (including the majority here on this forum) still trying to overturn the oppressive laws already in place?
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
To paraphrase the great Burgess Meredith, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other. Just because you don't think they are constitutional or just or whatever doesn't mean that they are null and void. You still have to pay attention to them. You can't just strap on your sidearm and take a stroll down PA ave. in DC without them busting you.


clearly that would be quite dumb of me :p

On my own, no. But I would rally enough people to make it safe then march down the streets of DC Open Carrying with no permit whatsoever. I'm not stupid, I know full well one person would get taken out in a heartbeat. It's got to be done en masse.

I hate it just as much as anyone, but the powers that be will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you cross them without the proper frame of legal protection in place. And THAT means legislation. Or armed revolution. Which do you think is more likely? You say there is an attitude of defeat... I say BS. If we're so defeated, why are so many of us (including the majority here on this forum) still trying to overturn the oppressive laws already in place?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding - United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) Furthermore

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886:
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.”

The main problem here is that unconstitutional laws are still considered law even with clear evidence to the contrary so people are left with appealing to the very people who stole that right. The idea is crazy. Ask your opressor for permission to exercise a right you already have that they stole and in the meantime while you jump through more hoops than a circus has people are being slaughtered every day in places like D.C, Chicago and New York among others.

We also need to limit qualified immunity to exclude the violation of the oath which include making unlawful rulings. Judges are running riot making judgements which have zero basis in law and are getting away with it because 1) we are silly enough to put that judges ruling over the Constitution and 2) they are not prosecuted for those crimes
 
Last edited:

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
It is a common error to suggest the misnamed "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution places federal law above state law and all other law. This is completely false.

It is an attempted usurpation promoted by the federal government itself, with the "news" media, and too often digested by useful idiots (no offense intended). Article VI actually says, in pertinent part:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ..." (emphases added)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The fact that it may have usurped power in areas where it has no jurisdiction provides no legitimacy or supremacy despite any actions it may have taken regarding education, energy, medicine, health care, housing and a litany of other areas. This has been repeatedly pointed out by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 1803
"an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 1886
"It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 1928
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." (Note: quoted from dissent.)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 1943
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution."
Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 1958
"It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official--as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official-is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms."
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 394 U.S. 147 1969
"And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license."

It's probably a good idea to keep in mind that the axiom described in these cases -- an unconstitutional law is void -- has an important corollary. Even an unconstitutional law is the law, and stays in place with full force and effect, until it is declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, or until removed by the legislature. People are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned under unconstitutional laws all the time. Some get off later. That can be summed up with a piece of street wisdom: The law means what the officer with the gun in your ear says it means.

Alan Korwin, Gunlaws.com. June 24th 2013
Last paragraph emphasis mine.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Have to disagree there. I don't see any way around the evidence from multiple rulings that the Constitution is supreme. Unless one does to the clause what has been done to the 2A and then you can make it say about anything
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--We really only need to ask 1 question. Is it Constitutional. If yes, obey. If not ignore. And this goes for individuals, counties, cities and states....
That is direct violation of Forum Rule #15.

"WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

No further warning will be given.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
So, the chief of police recommends that people ignore the law and defend themselves?

So what happens if you follow the police recommendation and get arrested?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
So, the chief of police recommends that people ignore the law and defend themselves?

So what happens if you follow the police recommendation and get arrested?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Do not see where the Chief recommended ignoring the law.

I would like to hear considerably more from her on this subject though - will she be helping to simply/streamline the permit process and clean up (take out the trash) some of the other anti draconian laws.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
We do not know why the Chief said this but to theorise on the idea of doing something our bevelant masters have deemed unnacceptable is certainly thoughtcrime. We must comply. Resistance is futile. Failure to do this will result in pants wetting then self-sensorship by those in fear of their masters. There is no escape.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626s using Tapatalk
 
Top