Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Latest news on Chet

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I briefly scanned thru the site to see if I was duplicating this. Sorry if I missed it and this is a duplicate





    NORFOLK
    The arrest of a man for openly carrying a gun at a Norfolk festival did not violate the U.S. Constitution but the police officer who asked for the man's Social Security number might have violated his civil rights, a federal judge ruled this week.
    Chester "Chet" Szymecki Jr. of Yorktown sued the city after his arrest in June 2007 on a charge of violating a city ordinance prohibiting firearms at Harborfest, held annually at Town Point Park.
    Szymecki, a gun rights advocate, has challenged handgun bans in the past. During his arrest, Szymecki claims police pushed him and that when he complained that the handcuffs were on too tight, an officer made them tighter.
    During his arrest and later, when he was released from custody, police asked him for his Social Security number. He initially balked, but gave it to the officers to avoid being detained longer, he says in his suit.
    The charge was later thrown out after city officials learned that it violated a state law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms.
    Szymecki sued in federal court claiming multiple constitutional violations, including the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures.
    U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. ruled Thursday that Szymecki cannot sue claiming constitutional violations under state or local law. Morgan ruled earlier this year that the city did not violate the Second Amendment for the same reason.
    "It is well settled law in this circuit that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states," Morgan wrote in dismissing Szymecki's constitutional claims. "Because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, neither a state law nor a local ordinance can run afoul of any right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
    However, Morgan ruled that the police demand for Szymecki's Social Security number - if the allegation is true - would have violated the federal Privacy Act.
    Morgan will allow the case to go to trial on that issue alone. The trial has been set for Dec. 16.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Chkultr wrote:
    I briefly scanned thru the site to see if I was duplicating this. Sorry if I missed it and this is a duplicate





    NORFOLK
    The arrest of a man for openly carrying a gun at a Norfolk festival did not violate the U.S. Constitution but the police officer who asked for the man's Social Security number might have violated his civil rights, a federal judge ruled this week.
    Chester "Chet" Szymecki Jr. of Yorktown sued the city after his arrest in June 2007 on a charge of violating a city ordinance prohibiting firearms at Harborfest, held annually at Town Point Park.
    Szymecki, a gun rights advocate, has challenged handgun bans in the past. During his arrest, Szymecki claims police pushed him and that when he complained that the handcuffs were on too tight, an officer made them tighter.
    During his arrest and later, when he was released from custody, police asked him for his Social Security number. He initially balked, but gave it to the officers to avoid being detained longer, he says in his suit.
    The charge was later thrown out after city officials learned that it violated a state law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms.
    Szymecki sued in federal court claiming multiple constitutional violations, including the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures.
    U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. ruled Thursday that Szymecki cannot sue claiming constitutional violations under state or local law. Morgan ruled earlier this year that the city did not violate the Second Amendment for the same reason.
    "It is well settled law in this circuit that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states," Morgan wrote in dismissing Szymecki's constitutional claims. "Because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, neither a state law nor a local ordinance can run afoul of any right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
    However, Morgan ruled that the police demand for Szymecki's Social Security number - if the allegation is true - would have violated the federal Privacy Act.
    Morgan will allow the case to go to trial on that issue alone. The trial has been set for Dec. 16.
    Not being from Va., I perhaps should ask this question somewhere else--but this article leads me to the inescapable question--if the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states--then how can the 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th? We are citizens not only of the United States, but of the state wherein we reside--14th Amendment...so how can a Constitutional Amendment NOT apply to the states?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    Chkultr wrote:
    I briefly scanned thru the site to see if I was duplicating this. Sorry if I missed it and this is a duplicate





    NORFOLK
    The arrest of a man for openly carrying a gun at a Norfolk festival did not violate the U.S. Constitution but the police officer who asked for the man's Social Security number might have violated his civil rights, a federal judge ruled this week.
    Chester "Chet" Szymecki Jr. of Yorktown sued the city after his arrest in June 2007 on a charge of violating a city ordinance prohibiting firearms at Harborfest, held annually at Town Point Park.
    Szymecki, a gun rights advocate, has challenged handgun bans in the past. During his arrest, Szymecki claims police pushed him and that when he complained that the handcuffs were on too tight, an officer made them tighter.
    During his arrest and later, when he was released from custody, police asked him for his Social Security number. He initially balked, but gave it to the officers to avoid being detained longer, he says in his suit.
    The charge was later thrown out after city officials learned that it violated a state law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms.
    Szymecki sued in federal court claiming multiple constitutional violations, including the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures.
    U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. ruled Thursday that Szymecki cannot sue claiming constitutional violations under state or local law. Morgan ruled earlier this year that the city did not violate the Second Amendment for the same reason.
    "It is well settled law in this circuit that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states," Morgan wrote in dismissing Szymecki's constitutional claims. "Because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, neither a state law nor a local ordinance can run afoul of any right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
    However, Morgan ruled that the police demand for Szymecki's Social Security number - if the allegation is true - would have violated the federal Privacy Act.
    Morgan will allow the case to go to trial on that issue alone. The trial has been set for Dec. 16.
    Not being from Va., I perhaps should ask this question somewhere else--but this article leads me to the inescapable question--if the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states--then how can the 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th? We are citizens not only of the United States, but of the state wherein we reside--14th Amendment...so how can a Constitutional Amendment NOT apply to the states?
    This is the issue of incorporation. The supreme court has not recognized that the 2A or 3A applying to the states. Total B.S. but this is the next wave in the fight for our rights. Only the Supreme Court can fix this problem.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    You need to read:

    Gun Control and Gun Rights: A Reader and Guide by Andrew McClurg, David B. Kopel, and Brannon Denning (Paperback - Jun 1, 2002)

    Super quick gist:

    1) There is some controversy that the Bill of Rights does not restrict state action (not in my mine). SCOTUS ruled that it does NOT in the early-mid 1800's.

    2) Some question as to intent of 14th Amendment to limit state action. SCOTUS takes the stand to evaluate on a case by case basis using something called "incorporation" into the 14th.

    3) The Second Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th. Scalia in Heller was not for incorporation. Therefore, we will continue to have 20,000+ gun laws across the 50 states (+Federal laws)...many of which would be unconstitutional if the RKBA had been incorporated or there was no notion that the Constitution does not apply to state action. All that is due to a *bad* decision by SCOTUS in the 1800’s...as if the Second Amendment cannot stand by itself. This is one of the great contradictions in the Constitution.

    4) The 14th Amendment contradicts the fundamental notion that rights are inherent and exist prior to and after the Constitution. SCOTUS has yet to resolve the conflict between #1 and #2 with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bristow, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Alan Gura (Hellers' attorney) spoke about this at the VCDL meeting he attended. The SCOTUS is trying to keep all their decisions very narrow in scope. Incorporation is an item that is planned to be pushed in the future.

Posting Permissions

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