ACCOUNTABILITY

imported post

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
42 U.S.C. Chapter 21
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERALLY
Sec. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. Sec. 1979; Pub. L. 96-170, Sec. 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284.)




[align=left]The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations [/align]
Article VI, U.S. Constitution
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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.



The Supreme Court Ruling that reasonable regulations can be made is a direct violation of Article VI since any regulation is an "infringement" and reasonable is very subjective. I would hate to read about another victim but when it happens; I would like to read about the family filing suit against judges, legislators, police and everyone that infringed on the victim's right to bear arms.:X

imported post

Judge rules state's gun laws prevail

Judge William Walsh says Supreme Court handgun case does not affect state laws.

Monday, July 14, 2008

By Jim O'Hara Staff writer

The recent historic handgun ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court should have no impact on gun control and licensing provisions in New York state, a local judge has concluded.

Onondaga County Judge William Walsh ruled the June 26 Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia's strict handgun ban has no effect on the rights of individual states to establish their own firearm laws.

Walsh made that finding in a written decision in which he reinstated a local man's pistol permit with limitations. [...]


http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1216025743248580.xml&coll=1


This is only a county judge who made his opinion known his contempt for unrestricted gun rights for upstanding citizens.

Maybe take it to NY Supreme Court over appliance of 14th Amendment to the 2nd Amendment. Not likely. Typical "liberal" stance on gun politics.

imported post

cyberdogg wrote:

Judge rules state's gun laws prevail

Judge William Walsh says Supreme Court handgun case does not affect state laws.

Monday, July 14, 2008

By Jim O'Hara Staff writer

The recent historic handgun ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court should have no impact on gun control and licensing provisions in New York state, a local judge has concluded.

Onondaga County Judge William Walsh ruled the June 26 Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia's strict handgun ban has no effect on the rights of individual states to establish their own firearm laws.

Walsh made that finding in a written decision in which he reinstated a local man's pistol permit with limitations. [...]


http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1216025743248580.xml&coll=1


This is only a county judge who made his opinion known his contempt for unrestricted gun rights for upstanding citizens.

Maybe take it to NY Supreme Court over appliance of 14th Amendment to the 2nd Amendment. Not likely. Typical "liberal" stance on gun politics.

Click to expand...

Do you see my point? Judges, all elected officials and LE take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. Some judge in the past decided that he/they didn't have to honor their oath and handed down a ruling that is in direct conflict with our constitution, "the supreme law of the land". The judges that follow, like this one, hang their hat on a ruling that is in conflict with the 2A and don't have the honor to make it right. Their rulings are changing the constitution and will end "a government of the people, for the people and by the people".

All rights are at risk as are the limits that were placed on government. Our constitution is one of the best documents ever created but that was at a time when a persons honor meant something. Do you think they care if your child dies in a gun free zone or anywhere for that matter? We're in deep @#$!% if people don't open their eyes and do it now. You feel it and see it just like I do or you wouldn't be at this site.

Ever feel like this?:banghead:I know that I do.