imported post
mrbiggles wrote:
Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.–
All the traffic laws that have exceptions for police officers while on duty should be null under this section shouldn't it?
Yes, pretty much.
Good luck getting thost parts of the laws overturned...
Shouldn't the various laws and policies like restricting weapons in court be null because officers are allowed to carry in there?
Not necessarilly. The proper course of action wouldn't
necessarily overturn the entire law, just the portion that gives unequal privilege to the police (ie., forbid the police from carrying as well).
But again, good luck getting it overturned.
mrbiggles wrote:
NaT805 wrote:
No.
Statutes (which aren't law) only apply to those that consent to be governed. Traffic laws are statutes. Under common law the judge is the sovereign of the court so it would be up to the judge to decide who gets to carry, and if you don't like it then you replace the judge.
A citizen is referring to someone who is a sovereign, if you don't know what it means to be a sovereign, then you aren't. If you don't want to pay tickets you don't have to.
can you elaborate more
I can't speak for NaT, but I'm guessing he's speaking from an anarcho-libertarian/anarchist or other individualist perspective as to the legitimicy of government. For example, if NaT, Puddin, and I got together and wrote a "statue" on a piece of paper that said that you couldn't wear jeans except on Friday, you'd laugh at us for our sillieness and continue on pursuing your happiness by wearing your blue jeans on Monday, Tuesday, or any old time you felt like it.
If you view the government as being illegitimate (or believe their founding documents, with silly little oft-ignored phrases like "by the consent of the governed"), as many of us do, then their "speeding" statues are no more "law" than our little piece of paper that says you can't wear blue jeans.
We didn't consent to them,
we didn't ask for them, they
do not belong and therefor
do not apply to us.
In a truly free society (which this country is not, in case you were confused), you only obey the rules of the government because you choose to -- because you
consent to them -- the same way you choose to obey your boss at work. If the governments rules get so silly that they don't work for you any more, you just "quit" from the government the same way you might quit a job because of a stupid boss. In a truly free society, a "judge" would merely be an arbitrator that the parties with a dispute would agree on jointly employing, who's ruling you'd agree to be bound by, in order to bring the dispute to resolution in a civil manner. You simply wouldn't hire judge/arbitrator that wouldn't allow you to carry your firearm in his "courtroom," and if he did, you'd simply replace him with one more to your liking. Oregon's laws against firearms posession would just be more silliness that you'd ignore.
Unfortunate, NaT ignores the practicality of the situation; namely that the state is more than happy to send thugs with guns to break into your house and force you to comply with their written rules, dragging you off to a cage if you refuse, and just plain killing you outright if you resist.
Getting dead is a good motivator to obey their wacky laws and rules, even if said rules are illogical, illegitimate, and immoral.
