What's more important: Your rights or?

Bucks Gun Shop said:

Lovenox - I cannot speak for the others, and I certainly don't know the law as well as 0.001% of the forum users here, but I believe that the police have for quite sometime had the right to enter in circumstances where they have "reason" to believe that life is in jepoardy - and I will accept that infringement on my rights to protect the life of a human being. However, I will not accept them infringing upon my rights when the life of a human being is not in jepoardy...

Click to expand...

Washintonian_For_Liberty said:

If today the Constitution means “just what the interpreter chooses it to mean”, then the Court and Congress have set themselves above the Constitution and it no longer serves as America’s anchor of freedom, justice and law but has degenerated into that “living, breathing document” whose meaning can change routinely, blown along by prevailing political winds.

This was NOT the original intent, not if we truly believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that no man is above the law and this includes all branches of government including the courts.

As a favorite judge of mine put it, “Interpreting the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" subject to reinvention according to the political whims of the moment is not just bad policy. It is a suicide pact.”

The Constitution was never meant to be 'interpreted'. Interpretation gives wide latitude to the interpreter while a strict objective reading based on the vocabulary used leaves only one interpretation. No one will argue that contracts can be interpreted differently by different people based on their own definition of words. Contracts must have strict singular meanings or they are useless. Most contracts allow for modification in the form of amendments. The Constitution is no different. You cannot change, modify or add to the meaning of the Constitution by interpretation... but you can do all those things via the amendment process. What the SCOTUS has done, and what all courts have been doing for quite some time now is substituting opinion for objective definitions.

The solution is quite simple. We must demand the most narrow, strict and objective interpretation of the Constitution based on the vocabulary of the day. We must reject any and all "reasonable" interpretations as the subjective opinions they are. We either restore the Republic fully, or this decade will be the last we will have as a nation of individual liberty. We are on the precipice and if we do not pull back now, the dominoes will take us all down.

Click to expand...

Lovenox said:

I subscribe to most of your posting. But dont you agree that there has to be limitations teathered to the laws and freedoms? Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater always comes to mind, felons not owning weapons is another, et al...

Click to expand...

Gray Peterson said:

As terrible as this decision is, we would do well to remember we here in Washington State have Article 1 Section 7 of our state constitution. Next month's CJTC LED will talk about this and I surmise that include in rather large letters that the decision does not apply in WA state.

Click to expand...

HK_dave said:

when? the sh!t IS hitting the fan. it's just happening so slowly no one sees it for what it is.


Yeah, it's only gonna be about a second, boy
'Til they take away all'a this country
And they'll tell you not to listen to this here song
And that far-off sound of freedom's
Gonna be an echo from the past
And the final tune is gonna be sad and long

C.W. McCall

Click to expand...

Lovenox said:

Sure, and I can buy that. However, with the police if you are breaking the law you are breaking the law. I believe there are overzealous in this application of enforcement of
the law.

Click to expand...

amzbrady said:

... I will be spending some of my last moments have apocalyptic sex. If the world doesnt end then my wife and I will have some celebration sex Sunday morning. YAY...

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

Odd how folks on here for the most part are all for not resisting a LEO violating your rights on the side of the road and to seek redress later. When it comes to their castle though it is guns blazing. Reality check, it is hard to gain redress when you are hit 60 out of 71 times. Then again, you can go onto the next life comfortable in the fact that you may have put up a good fight, you lost the fight, but it was a good fight.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Let's use a bit more of the quote from Oliver Wendall Holmes....

“the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”

He was not and never insinuated that free speech was limited, if there was a fire and someone didn't shout this, I would think of them as blood guilty for the deaths of those who perished.

The most "stringent protection" means free speech to the max without any restrictions at all would not protect you from being held liable if you had caused the deaths of some because you created a panic.

Felons with guns...if they did their time, their inalienable rights should be restored.

Click to expand...

Lovenox said:

Not trying to rock the boat here but if the same officers heard someone screaming inside you guys are saying they should get a search warrant? Regardless of what you think about the drug laws as they stand arent they obligated to sieze evidence before it gets disposed of or "used". I will temper my statement by saying that I don't nessasarily agree with this just throwing something out there..

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

Odd how folks on here for the most part are all for not resisting a LEO violating your rights on the side of the road and to seek redress later. When it comes to their castle though it is guns blazing. Reality check, it is hard to gain redress when you are hit 60 out of 71 times. Then again, you can go onto the next life comfortable in the fact that you may have put up a good fight, you lost the fight, but it was a good fight.

Click to expand...

Aknazer said:

Someone breaking into your house is different than someone simply stopping you in the public. The very act of breaking into someone's house is hostile and should be resisted if possible, but also in you're house you're potentially in a much better position to resist depending on you're location in the house at the time of break-in. An illegal stop on the road should be reasonably resisted, but you are in a worse position to resist forcibly and a stop on the side of the road can be a lot different than people breaking into your house. Hopefully I don't need to outline exactly how the two are different, and just because people feel that one should resist the unlawful search of their home doesn't mean that they feel resistance should be given if it would reasonably result in their death (for example trying to resist when the front door blows in and people with guns drawn run in while at the same time ones couch faces that same door).

And with your example the person shot was potentially resisting a SWAT team, which is far different than resisting a few cops who decide they want to search your house simply because they can.

Click to expand...

The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." This inestimable right of [392 U.S. 1, 9] personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs. For, as this Court has always recognized,
"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

Click to expand...

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

Click to expand...

joeroket said:

They have had that right for sometime now. It is called Exigent Circumstances.

Click to expand...

joeroket said:

They have had that right for sometime now. It is called Exigent Circumstances.

Click to expand...

Orphan said:

Exigent Circumstances is not a right, that kind of thinking is why we are losing our rights so fast.

Click to expand...