• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Legally armed Tennessean shocked at NYC 9/11 Memorial arrest, Where can I check this?

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and President's, Politicians, and the Supreme Court have been doing everything they can since our countries founding to get around what they did not like about it.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbitrator in determining if a law fits within the confines of the Constitution.

As I am not a lawyer, I do not care about the minutia of the wording of this or that law, case law, etc, but instead care about the outcome.

I know what the 2nd Amendment says. I know what the Founders said about the bearing of arms and their intentions of acknowledging that right by making it number 2 in the top 10 list.

It does not take a lawyer to know that the citizens of this country are being sold down the road by bad politicians that would like nothing better than to disarm us piece by piece so that they can take even more of our liberties. They would love to disarm us to pass more tax laws in order to steal more and more of our hard earned money to give to the voting groups that will keep them in power. They are a disgrace to the ideals this country was founded upon.

No one has answered my question yet on whether they think it would be OK for New York City to pass a law banning the King James Bible? I mean, if we are talking about States Rights? (I am a believer that only People have rights, States have Powers, powers that are constrained by the Constitution and Bill of Rights) The City has no more power to ban the King James Bible than to ban law abiding citizens the right to bear arms there.

I also think that Permits are not Constitutional. Would Christians pay for a Permit to carry the King James Bible? Would Muslims pay for a Permit to carry the Koran?

Why should we stand for the issuance of Permits to exercise our Natural Right of bearing Arms for Self-Defense, a right recognized and acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment?

We should not.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/solipsism It often reveals itself by nonstandard capitalization.

Actually I have no problem acknowledging the views of others...agreeing to them is another thing.

What part of my analysis do you disagree with?

Would people stand for the Government requiring a permit to carry the King James Bible? The Koran? If no, why would they stand for a permit for a firearm?

The argument is no more complex than that. We have allowed lawyers and politicians to frame the argument and use terminology that most do not use nor care to learn. They do this in order to pretend to be more important than they are. If you can control the language, you can keep control.

Certainly some on this forum are quite versed in this...as they link to their own big words they found on the internet. Priceless.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and President's, Politicians, and the Supreme Court have been doing everything they can since our countries founding to get around what they did not like about it.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbitrator in determining if a law fits within the confines of the Constitution.

As I am not a lawyer, I do not care about the minutia of the wording of this or that law, case law, etc, but instead care about the outcome.

Wait a minute.

You come along and say SCOTUS was originally intended to review the constitutionality of laws.

Then I look into it and find that was not true. And, post more accurate information.

Then you come back and say a) you don't care, and b) say SCOTUS is supposed to be the final arbiter, basically reinforcing what you said earlier?

Rather than just say, "Oh, thanks for the tip."

Do I got all that straight?


Relying on SCOTUS to accurately maintain rights is like relying on Congress not to pass laws infringing rights. SCOTUS has a long history of wiping away rights. SCOTUS might from time to time come up with a right decision, but make no mistake, it is government and there seems to be an inclination to support the other branches when the question is between government and a citizen.

And, Marbury v Madison is where ruling on the constitutionality of a law started. Its not that SCOTUS was originally intended to do this. Its not that SCOTUS is supposed to do this. Its that the Marshall court just up and seized the power. It saw that power laying out there unassigned and decided, "We'll take that, 10th Amendment be damned." (10A = all powers not granted are reserved).
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
Wait a minute.

You come along and say SCOTUS was originally intended to review the constitutionality of laws.

Then I look into it and find that was not true. And, post more accurate information.

Then you come back and say a) you don't care, and b) say SCOTUS is supposed to be the final arbiter, basically reinforcing what you said earlier?

Rather than just say, "Oh, thanks for the tip."

Do I got all that straight?


Relying on SCOTUS to accurately maintain rights is like relying on Congress not to pass laws infringing rights. SCOTUS has a long history of wiping away rights. SCOTUS might from time to time come up with a right decision, but make no mistake, it is government and there seems to be an inclination to support the other branches when the question is between government and a citizen.

And, Marbury v Madison is where ruling on the constitutionality of a law started. Its not that SCOTUS was originally intended to do this. Its not that SCOTUS is supposed to do this. Its that the Marshall court just up and seized the power. It saw that power laying out there unassigned and decided, "We'll take that, 10th Amendment be damned." (10A = all powers not granted are reserved).

I apologize as my limitations are borne of the Public Education System and IANAL.

I have read some of the Federalist Papers and other writings from our founding fathers.

If the three branches of the government are not bound by the Constitution, what recourse do we have? It would seem we have again been sold a false bill of goods.

I, perhaps falsely, always believed that the Supreme Court was supposed to determine whether laws and lower court decisions were made within the confines of the Constitution.

If I am incorrect, then we are in a far worse position than I previously thought.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Certainly some on this forum are quite versed in this...as they link to their own big words they found on the internet. Priceless.
What is dumb, what is smart? You deny "dumb" but would deny me "smart." Either we are equal or we are not.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
What is dumb, what is smart? You deny "dumb" but would deny me "smart." Either we are equal or we are not.

I did not infer anything about how smart you are but you have inferred that I did not consider others opinions.

It seems that the biggest problem with these forums is that if anyone dares speak out of turn or dare to not agree with the word jujitsu of some that they are to be squashed immediately.

I am not the enemy here.

If you go to the average person and start talking about Supreme Court decisions and using legal terminology that they do not care to learn, you do nothing but exclude them from the fight.

We must phrase the argument in terms that the average person understands.

As I have stated multiple times in this thread, if someone were told that they had to buy a permit from the government in order to carry their King James Bible, they would tell you where to shove your permit.

So, if the government cannot take away our First Amendment right by demanding a fee for a permit to worship via carrying a Bible, how can it charge us a fee and require a permit to exercise our Second Amendment right?

See, it is an argument that the average person can grasp.

Arguments such as that will go far further to turn on light bulbs in our otherwise "government school" educated people.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
NY Politicians Having Second Thoughts on TN Woman Prosecution

As I have been saying, we need to show the average American the absurdity of the draconian gun laws of NYC.

Councilmen in NY are so afraid that the average American will be so incensed by this that it will bring scrutiny upon their laws that it is being suggested they drop charges.

Average Americans understand that criminals should not have guns but when the laws are against possession lacking criminal usage or intent, they are wrong and should be changed.

I agree, this story will get people talking and needs maximum exposure.

Read the story here:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ians-second-thoughts-on-tn-woman-prosecution/
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
9/11 tourist gun arrest follow-up. NY Assembly Speaker Silver to reassess gun laws.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/law_in_cross_hairs_88DTorAzp2T5JZX5dAkXbM
Dicker said:
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan), the state’s second-most powerful Democrat, said yesterday that he will have “a committee hold a hearing on this question, to see how exactly the law is being enforced and to look at the possibility that there should be changes in the law.’’
John R. Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws mentions this at johnrlott.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:

Jake8x7

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
109
Location
DeLand, FL
You really have to wonder if any such committeeeven wants to change such laws. The Brady campaign and all those alligned with their ideologies (90% of new york politicians) probably see locking up a "gun weilding, bible clinging, god loving hick" as a good thing. Sounds absurd but I wouldnt put it past them.


Jake8x7
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
They have been remarkably open in declaring that they are afraid that the current laws may come to bite them on their collective butts, given the recent SCOTUS rulings and how lower courts elsewhere are using those decisions to interpret the laws.

For once I find myself agreeing with them - their laws are going to bite them on their collective butts. But so will failing to incarcerate out-of-staters and merely collect the large fines.

stay safe.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
It's N.Y., nuff said. IF they look at changing anything, it will most likely be with a light towards how to make the laws even MORE restrictive..not less.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
he will have “a committee hold a hearing on this question, to see how exactly the law is being enforced and to look at the possibility that there should be changes in the law.’’
So he's thinking about having some people look into how rights are being infringed and maybe they'll come to the conclusion later this year that some laws should be changed, then it'll be another 2 years before they can agree on how little to change & bring it to a vote, where it'll likely be voted down anyway.
:mad:
How many incidents like this one & the other recent arrestee (and the dozen or so before them) would it take to show that laws definitely do need to be changed?

If the same thing happened to someone trying to worship, imagine the outcry.
Hey... other people have invented religions. Let's work on it.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I apologize as my limitations are borne of the Public Education System and IANAL.

I have read some of the Federalist Papers and other writings from our founding fathers.

If the three branches of the government are not bound by the Constitution, what recourse do we have? It would seem we have again been sold a false bill of goods.

I, perhaps falsely, always believed that the Supreme Court was supposed to determine whether laws and lower court decisions were made within the confines of the Constitution.

If I am incorrect, then we are in a far worse position than I previously thought.

No sweat. I was public-school educated, too. I've spent a good amount of time clearing up omissions and false/misleading info from my public school education.

You've nailed it right on the money with your comment about government not bound by the constitution. Although it would seem the government is limited by the constitution, the fact of the matter is that the fedgov gets to decide what its powers are. This is a real problem because SCOTUS has a long history of supporting the other branches. Witness for example the case called Wickard vs Filburn from the 1940s or 1950s. A farmer was convicted or fined for growing wheat on his own farm for his own consumption. Any sane, normal person would say the farmer was not involved in interstate commerce in any way, and thus was not subject to federal limitations about growing too much wheat (the fedgov had a law or regulation limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown in order to prop up grain prices in the postwar years). SCOTUS came along and said that since the farmer was not purchasing wheat on the open market, he was affecting the market, and since he was affecting the market, he was subject to the regulations. This is the sort of thing you get when you allow the government to decide what its powers are. Another example would be Obama's decision that he had the power to kill citizens without trial if he decided they were a terrorist. Hey! That pesky Fifth Amendment right to due process--gone! That pesky limitation about no Bills of Attainder (declaring someone an outlaw and open to being killed)--gone!

The constitution is just a piece of paper. It is not self-enforcing. And, as long as the fedgov gets to decide what its powers are, then look out. We get exactly the mess we've got.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
A NY Democrat "reassess" its gun laws? That'll never happen.

I don't think the Assembly has the votes to force statewide preemption on NYC. NYC runs NY like Seattle runs Washington. They should have forced preemption on NYC decades ago.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
If the three branches of the government are not bound by the Constitution, what recourse do we have? It would seem we have again been sold a false bill of goods.
As that great thinker Lysander Spooner put it:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
As that great thinker Lysander Spooner put it:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

+1!

Three cheers for Spooner!

More Spooner worth reading is his Essay on Trial by Jury. Just google it and read the first section of the essay. You will instantly know and understand more about the real powers of a juror than 99.5% of the rest of the population.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
+1!

Three cheers for Spooner!

More Spooner worth reading is his Essay on Trial by Jury. Just google it and read the first section of the essay. You will instantly know and understand more about the real powers of a juror than 99.5% of the rest of the population.
Downloaded Free from Project Gutenberg, waiting to be sideloaded to my K e-reader. Thanks.
 
Top