I don't know. This seems like a type of activism & "doing-your-job".
This guys job is to uphold the current state and federal constitutions. This includes not violating anyones fundamental rights, which includes all of the amendments (e.g. 2A). This also includes upholding the laws on the books set forth by the people and the representatives of the people.
First, he just is doing the right thing now, which is required by his job. By doing so, how much do I need to congratulate someone for doing their job?
Second, his job is to defend the current laws on the books, regardless of his personal feelings and interpretations of them (the activism portion). He *should* be following and playing by the rules set forth. However, this doesn't mean he needs to play to win in the cases he brings forth.
Ultimately, I'm glad he's doing what he's doing... I just think it could be done better than "I won't prosecute any laws pertaining to..." which allows the same laws to remain on the books and the next guy to prosecute people who got comfortable with the status quo.
This guy's 'job' is to uphold the Constitution he swore an oath to. Not all laws are Constitutional just because they're 'on the books'. "
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
http://forum.opencarry.orghttp://forum.opencarry.org.
