Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Nullification by states of federal laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Nullification by states of federal laws

    I ran across something I thought was very interesting. Over the past several years during the current administration, we have seen a number of states pass legislative resolutions, laws, and enter into lawsuits regarding the federal government overstepping its bounds and going beyond the confines of the Constitution. While this is not something new with the federal government, I can't remember in my lifetime when I have seen so many states up in arms about the feds going too far. I saw this little quite this morning and thought it was most interesting;

    "Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government."

    I have argued a few times that military personnel are not under any obligation to follow orders issued by a superior which are in clear violation of the Constitution, up to and including the president, because such orders would be illegal and therefore non-orders. I have spoken to several military officers about this very thing and they have agreed with my assessment. In fact, they would be violating their military oath were they to carry out such an order.

    The same logic could therefore be applied to states. If the federal government passes a law or imposes a regulation which is in clear violation of the federal or a state constitution, then the states are not obligated to abide by this law or regulation.

    What say you folks to this? How do you see this? May I implore you to keep this civil and respectful.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  2. #2
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    So by that We can stretch it to mean that ATF has no legitimate standing to be in operation?

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinchico View Post
    So by that We can stretch it to mean that ATF has no legitimate standing to be in operation?
    I don't recall how or under what pretenses the BATFE was formed but I think it was an outgrowth of the 1968 Gun Control Act. If we were to take the Constitution literally then no, there is no justification for this agency's formation and existence. It would indeed be interesting to see how things play out should it come to a head with the ATF and states like Montana. As I understand it, a Montana sheriff has power over the ATF, and any other federal agency, and could arrest any ATF personnel in their state doing things outside of their purview.

    Of course, I fully welcome and appreciate corrections and thoughts about this because frankly, I don't have an answer to this.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I don't recall how or under what pretenses the BATFE was formed but I think it was an outgrowth of the 1968 Gun Control Act. If we were to take the Constitution literally then no, there is no justification for this agency's formation and existence. It would indeed be interesting to see how things play out should it come to a head with the ATF and states like Montana. As I understand it, a Montana sheriff has power over the ATF, and any other federal agency, and could arrest any ATF personnel in their state doing things outside of their purview.

    Of course, I fully welcome and appreciate corrections and thoughts about this because frankly, I don't have an answer to this.
    Nevada sheriffs departments where doing this to CA ATF agents that crossed the state line to arrest CA people for buying guns in Nevada

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    The reason I raise this thread was because we have been seeing an increase in states asserting themselves and their limitless powers over the "limited" powers of the federal government which is the way the Founders design the system in the first place. So perhaps the spirit of real Americanism has not completely left us, at least in some states, for the "comfort" of the federal umbrella. One would have to wonder how far the feds would push a state or states which decided to stand their ground and essentially tell the feds, enough is enough and you've gone much too far already.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Gun control was implemented to keep colored in check so arent then by nature all gun control laws unconstitutional?

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Some good points SoutherBoy.

    I too have been watching this with a keen interest on how this will play out. Several states for several different reasons from fire arms to marijuana have been flexing their constitutional muscle. It seems to me that in several ways the U.S. is at a cross-roads of sorts.

    If successful I would hope this would then inspire the citizens of their respectful states to then fight to take back freedom and liberty within their own state borders.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I can't remember in my lifetime when I have seen so many states up in arms about the feds going too far.
    Neither can I! I believe the rapid and unfiltered information available on the Internet to all People has a lot to do with it, as does the fact that our current president is so unabashedly arrogant in assuming his righteousness somehow supercedes our Constitution. I distinctly recall in the 1980s, the main arguement against Pat Robertson had to do with the question: "Will he follow what think God is telling him to do, or will he follow the rule of law?" For Obama, a lawyer, no less, to follow his heart in violation of the Constitution is absurd. If Illinois had any conscious, they'd have disbarred him.

    I have argued a few times that military personnel are not under any obligation to follow orders issued by a superior which are in clear violation of the Constitution, up to and including the president, because such orders would be illegal and therefore non-orders.
    It's considered an "unlawful order," and you're absolutely correct. Not only does it not have to be followed, but it should not be followed. Much training goes into this at all levels, from E-1 to O-10.

    I have spoken to several military officers about this very thing and they have agreed with my assessment. In fact, they would be violating their military oath were they to carry out such an order.
    Bingo, but only to the degree by which an order violated the Constitution itself. However, there's a derivative effect wherein federal (including the UCMJ), state, and local laws which derive their authority from the Constitution. For example, if a senior-ranking member of the military ordered a junior member to speed from an off-base lunch to an on-base meeting, for example, and they got into a wreck and killed a civilian, they'd both be in hot water, the senior for giving an unlawful order, and the junior for following it.

    The same logic could therefore be applied to states. If the federal government passes a law or imposes a regulation which is in clear violation of the federal or a state constitution, then the states are not obligated to abide by this law or regulation.
    This should read: "If the federal government passes a law or imposes a regulation which is in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, then the states are not obligate to abide by this law or regulation." The key difference is that it's the U.S. Constitution itself which reserves powers to the states. A state cannot claim, even in its own Constitution, a power given to the fed by the U.S. Constitution.

    What say you folks to this? How do you see this?
    Thanks for asking!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Some good comments, thank you gentlemen. I have felt, and written, for a number of years that there are two things a despotic government must do if they are to be successful in their swelling -> engulfing powers;

    o Control the dissemination of information.
    o Remove from the people their ability to resist.

    If the states continue to test the waters of resistance against expanding federal power and authority, we might see inroads into either or both of these events, a certain signal that the wolf is at the door.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Little Axe, Oklahoma
    Posts
    137

    10th Ammendment

    The 10th Ammendment allows each state to decalre its individual soverignty. This tells the feds to back off on certain laws and regulations that are controled by the state. Effectively telling the feds no to some of the junk they are trying to push off on the public.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Buy or borrow and read Thomas Wood's book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny.

    Its been out a number of months now. I've read it through. Very good book.

    It becomes apparent early that Woods is a scholar and historian. He walks you through the history of state nullification going back to the 1700's. He also dissassembles the talking-head arguments against nullification.

    Very good book. Very good. What a complete breath of fresh air.

    The book: http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-.../dp/1596981490

    It may also be in public libraries by now.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    This discussion about unconstitutional laws or even conflicting laws is a constant subject on almost any board that has even a hint of desire to talk about it. The fact is that no one has to obey any law or order that is unconstutional. The problem with this is who decides whether or not it is unconstitutional or not? An individual cannot decide on his own and be protected for his decision. An unconstutional law is fully enforceable until it is declared otherwise. Until the Supreme Court of the US or the State declares it as such it is on the books and enforceable. Now if it is clearly against the constution then you can expect a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court but it if is that clear then I doubt that it would have been passed in the first place.

    We can argue all we want to about whether certain laws or orders are unconstitutional and refuse to obey them on our interpretations of the constitution but until the Supreme Court says one way or the other our opinions count for zero. If someone in the military decides not to obey an illegal order that is his right and what he should do but he better be correct on it being an illegal order. Just because you don't like a certain law or order and think that it isn't legal you still are required to obey it until it is decided by someone higher up the chain than you. Only one body has the absolute power to declare a law illegal and that is the Supreme Court. For everyone else it is only opinions.

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    This discussion about unconstitutional laws or even conflicting laws is a constant subject on almost any board that has even a hint of desire to talk about it. The fact is that no one has to obey any law or order that is unconstutional. The problem with this is who decides whether or not it is unconstitutional or not? An individual cannot decide on his own and be protected for his decision. An unconstutional law is fully enforceable until it is declared otherwise. Until the Supreme Court of the US or the State declares it as such it is on the books and enforceable. Now if it is clearly against the constution then you can expect a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court but it if is that clear then I doubt that it would have been passed in the first place.

    We can argue all we want to about whether certain laws or orders are unconstitutional and refuse to obey them on our interpretations of the constitution but until the Supreme Court says one way or the other our opinions count for zero. If someone in the military decides not to obey an illegal order that is his right and what he should do but he better be correct on it being an illegal order. Just because you don't like a certain law or order and think that it isn't legal you still are required to obey it until it is decided by someone higher up the chain than you. Only one body has the absolute power to declare a law illegal and that is the Supreme Court. For everyone else it is only opinions.
    Well there is another governmental body besides the supreme court which can do this. Congress. While we may have been taught that there are three branches of government (federal) and that all are equal in power, that is just not so. The Founders knew that there had to be one branch which ultimately held the second highest supreme sovereign in the nation and that had to be congress. They designed it this way because congress is closer to the People and is elected whereas the justices who sit on the court are appointed. It is congress which can remove a sitting justice, or a president, not either of the other two branches. This is how it should be.

    But you are certainly correct about the rest of your post. That is why it would take the powers of a state to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and regulations. As for the military, let's say the president issued an executive order directed at the military to start aiding local and state authorities to confiscate private firearms. This is clearly an illegal order on the part of the president and therefore no one is obligated to carry it out. Not only that, but he would open the door to impeachment proceedings for having issued such an order. Of course, whether or not that were to happen is conjecture. But can you imagine what it might look like if an entire state militia was called up and fully supported by state law enforcement if this actually happened? A Mexican standoff maybe? And the sheriffs of the various towns and counties could arrest any federal or military personnel trying to carry out such an illegal order. Is this likely to happen? I doubt it.

    Even Obama is not that dumb.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629
    I have to agree that it is obvious that the fed. has over stepped it's lawful authority, often, and yes; some states are starting to realize this and nullify some of the federal encroachment. I firmly believe, that the US constitution clearly defines federal authority, and everything from alcohol, marijuana, firearms, and many many other things have been unlawfully/unconstitutionaly banned, controlled, and outlawed by the feds, and citizens that ignore the illegal federal laws are not guilty of any crime, when doing activities contrary to those laws.

    Unfortunately, the ONLY reason the feds can and do enforce these "laws", is because our state representatives are gutless cowards, that care more for keeping their place at the public feeding trough, than actually representing the people, and the feds have insured that they and only they have the arms to enforce the laws they know are unconstitutional. So by restricting our ability to resist with force if ever needed, is being slowly withered, intentionally, and steadily.

    One thing we have in our court, is a trial by jury. A jury of 12 fellow Americans, that can simply nullify any charges that any state or even the feds can throw at somebody. To me personally if other citizen is not or has not violated the Constitutional rights of another citizen, then NO crime has been committed.

    Crimes against the state or federal government is irrellevant, only crimes against citizens have any merit, to me anyway.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Along with the above post another thing to do is to get our States to stop taking "Federal" money and the strings that go along with it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Along with the above post another thing to do is to get our States to stop taking "Federal" money and the strings that go along with it.
    True but unfortunately the states are so dependent upon federal funding that this would have to be a slow weening from the federal tit. One way to do this would be to do away with the income and corporate tax structure and institute a user tax of 15% for goods and services. Make 10% of this tax go to the subject states and 5% to the federal government. This would force the feds to come to the states during those times when they want more funding. It would put power back where it belongs; in the hands of the states and significantly reduce federal power and control.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    True but unfortunately the states are so dependent upon federal funding that this would have to be a slow weening from the federal tit. One way to do this would be to do away with the income and corporate tax structure and institute a user tax of 15% for goods and services. Make 10% of this tax go to the subject states and 5% to the federal government. This would force the feds to come to the states during those times when they want more funding. It would put power back where it belongs; in the hands of the states and significantly reduce federal power and control.
    Actually, all that is necessary for states to get off the Fed teat is for the citizens of ALL the states to quit sending money to the IRS and instead send it to the states. No increase in taxes, States have more money and the fed has to divest it self of all the extraneous departments it has. Like DEA, ATF, IRS, Dept. of Ed., HUD, HHS, HS, Commerce, Labor, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Federal Bank, No more money to the UN, ad infinitum.

    Rough, but it would work. They can't charge the whole citizenry with failure to pay the IRS.
    What were the original Cabinet Positions? State, War, Treasury. those are all that are needed. The Federal government is SUPPOSED to be SMALLER than most State governments.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Some good points SoutherBoy.

    I too have been watching this with a keen interest on how this will play out. Several states for several different reasons from fire arms to marijuana have been flexing their constitutional muscle. It seems to me that in several ways the U.S. is at a cross-roads of sorts.

    If successful I would hope this would then inspire the citizens of their respectful states to then fight to take back freedom and liberty within their own state borders.
    "It seems to me that in several ways the U.S. is at a cross-roads of sorts."

    Yes it does, doesn't it.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Franklin Co., NC
    Posts
    48
    Nullification is a very real tool that should be used much more often by the states. The beauty of the system the Founders gave us is within the Federalist system. The Federal gov't was given just enough delegated powers to handle certain needed tasks and the rest is reserved to the states and the people. At least that was how it was supposed to be.

    The American populace needs to be educated about how our system of gov't is supposed to be. We were NEVER supposed to have a nanny-state federal gov't that feeds you, pays your dr. bills, tells you what kind of light bulbs to use, cars to drive, etc et al... For example, if Obamacare does not get overturned by the Courts, it IS INCUMBENT upon the states to nullify it. Not only is it an option, it is a duty. Much as it was mentioned earlier that a person in the military not only has the choice to disobey and unconstitutional command, they have a duty to.

    Also, SouthernBoy, you are dead right about the Supreme Court not being the only body to rule on the Constitutionality of a law. All 3 branches have checks to varying degrees that they can levy upon any other branch, should that branch step out of the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers, (cant remember which one specifically at the moment) the Supreme court was not even supposed to have the power of unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional, a power they usurped in Marbury v. Madison. Nonetheless, EVERY member of every branch of gov't takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

    Also, every citizen, whether sworn or not, in my opinion, has this duty as well. It is a tough issue for me. I believe, from a philosophical standpoint, that one is not obliged to obey ANY law that is unconstitutional (I could take it further and say that a person shouldnt obey a law that disagrees with natural law, but thats going a bit far for this forum.) Thus, all concealed carry laws are not to be obeyed (read 2nd amendment, nothing there about taking a CC class and buying a permit.) However, in a practical sense, if one gets caught disobeying CC laws, a philosophical argument will not help you in court. The actual legal code is what the judge will use to rule. *it should be noted that I am not actually advocating anyone disobey CC laws. Just making a philosophical point using that as an example.
    "I believe that a person's moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves." - Ted Nugent

  21. #21
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post

    Even Obama is not that dumb.
    I wouldnt be so sure about that. He s going behind Congresses back on a lot of things, Healthcare and you remember UN and firearms right. Obama doesnt appear to be that bright

  22. #22
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    When laws clearly violate the constitution, be it state or federal - those laws are invalid.
    The PEOPLE need not wait for the courts, the legislatures, or the executives to remedy the violation.

    The body politic-the people - will eventually ,as will any intelligent organism , respond to a given threat against their liberty by either avoiding, or confronting that threat. The FOURTH BRANCH of our government is THE PEOPLE. When they determine that certain laws lack constitutional validity they will begin a de facto nullification process that will take the form of conscious, and deliberate disobedience, invocation of their collective power through jury nullification, and the ballot box.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Well there is another governmental body besides the supreme court which can do this. Congress. While we may have been taught that there are three branches of government (federal) and that all are equal in power, that is just not so. The Founders knew that there had to be one branch which ultimately held the second highest supreme sovereign in the nation and that had to be congress. They designed it this way because congress is closer to the People and is elected whereas the justices who sit on the court are appointed. It is congress which can remove a sitting justice, or a president, not either of the other two branches. This is how it should be.

    But you are certainly correct about the rest of your post. That is why it would take the powers of a state to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and regulations. As for the military, let's say the president issued an executive order directed at the military to start aiding local and state authorities to confiscate private firearms. This is clearly an illegal order on the part of the president and therefore no one is obligated to carry it out. Not only that, but he would open the door to impeachment proceedings for having issued such an order. Of course, whether or not that were to happen is conjecture. But can you imagine what it might look like if an entire state militia was called up and fully supported by state law enforcement if this actually happened? A Mexican standoff maybe? And the sheriffs of the various towns and counties could arrest any federal or military personnel trying to carry out such an illegal order. Is this likely to happen? I doubt it.

    Even Obama is not that dumb.
    You are correct that Congress can technically overrule the SC by impeachment so it does create a balance of power between the three branches. I have no argument there. As for your example it would be one heck of a mess if this actually were attempted. I think you are correct that Obama is not that dumb or at least his advisers are not but sometimes I wonder about some of them.

    When we talk about not having to obey unconstituional laws and being able to ignore them we need to look at the actual cases such as Heller. For years people were charged, arrested, and punished for violating the gun laws of DC. When the Heller case finally made it to the SCOTUS it was found that the law was uncontitutional. Yes and unconstitutional law was on the books and we should not have had to obey it but what happened if we did not? We can run around here proclaiming that we do not have to obey unconstitutional laws all we want to but until they are declared that way by someone besides ourselves then we can expect it to be treated as constitutional. Then we need to ask what about all the people who were found guilty of violating the uconstitutional laws of DC before Heller? Finally what happens if the law (or order) you are refusing to obey is found to be legit? Lots of questions but not a lot of answers at least from me but I do have one piece of advice. Be sure you know what you are doing before you start challenging a law or an order.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    You are correct that Congress can technically overrule the SC by impeachment so it does create a balance of power between the three branches.
    Additionally, SCOTUS also rules on the legality of cases based on Congressional law. If Congress intended the law to mean one thing, and SCOTUS rules otherwise, on a non-Constitutional basis, Congress can simply revise the law. If SCOTUS rules against Congress' intent on the basis of Constitutionality, Congress can change, delete, or add amendments as required to change the Constitution itself.

    I have no argument there. As for your example it would be one heck of a mess if this actually were attempted. I think you are correct that Obama is not that dumb or at least his advisers are not but sometimes I wonder about some of them.

    When we talk about not having to obey unconstituional laws and being able to ignore them we need to look at the actual cases such as Heller.

    ...

    Then we need to ask what about all the people who were found guilty of violating the uconstitutional laws of DC before Heller?
    In a perfect world, they would be released. I'm not certain of the process, here, but from what I understand, it's not automatic. That is, their attorney would have to request a special appeal on the grounds of a SCOTUS ruling the law un-Constitutional. From what I understand, they go pretty quickly, with the attorney simply stating, "Jones was convicted of violating Law X, and on 1/1/01, SCOTUS rules Law X un-Constitutional, and therefore request the court exonorate my client of any wrongdoing." It's a bit more involved than that, with the expungement of records, possible reimbursement of legal fees payment for time while wrongfully imprisoned, etc., but you get the idea.

    Finally what happens if the law (or order) you are refusing to obey is found to be legit?
    Ooops...

    Lots of questions but not a lot of answers at least from me but I do have one piece of advice. Be sure you know what you are doing before you start challenging a law or an order.
    Outstanding advice. Here's another: Err on the side of caution i.e. avoid both the gray areas as well as any area about which you're not 100% certain.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I don't recall how or under what pretenses the BATFE was formed but I think it was an outgrowth of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
    Here's some of the history that puts you on target.

    http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...ell-story.html

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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