CCW National Reciprocity

[shaggy]

US v. Adams? Jesus LAK, Adams is a fairly common name - You'll have to give me a cite or at least tell me which court and year the case was heard in if you really want me to read the case. Of course knowing your ability to misinterpret even the simplest of cases maybe you don't really want me to find it.

"pay taxes" because they are taken at source. If not, believe me I would not willingly give up ONE CENT. You may have the slave mentality Shaggy - I do not. The income tax is a constructive fraud. It is theft.

Oh yes, I'm sure the only reason you don't pay taxes is because its taken out of your paycheck by your employer and you have no control over it. Baloney LAK, you are so full of crap its laughable. If you had the courage of your convictions you'd lie on your W-4 to overstate your deductions so your employer would withhold the least amount possible and then you would not file or pay on April 15 every year.

But the fact of the matter is that you don't overstate your deductions, and you do file and pay taxes every year just like everyone else because you know the IRS will bring civil and criminal charges that WILL stick.

It will change, or this country as an independent sovereign nation is finished. It is one or the other. It is not going to hover forever between "both".

Its been hovering for decades. And once again, I ask you for some shred of evidence its changing. I see nothing to indicate even the slightest retreat from the abuse of the Commerce Clause. The very existance of entire federal agencies is largely based upon the abuse of the Commerce Clause - The SEC, FCC, FAA, BATFE, and a number of other federal agencies would largely cease to exist if not for the legislative abuses of the Commerce Clause. And you think thats going to change? You honestly believe the Supreme Court is ever going to step in and issue a ruling that would instantly eliminate 90% of these agencies? Sure thing, chief...

Re: US v. Stewart

Yep, that will not surprize me. But they may not hear the case, or it may not go as you and I believe is likely. When it does, why don't you file a "Friend of the Court" brief supporting the relevence of the "commerce clause" in Stewart's case?

And why do you even care if you don't think the feds have jurisdiction to regulate? Why don't you just make your own NFA weapons in violation of the law? If, as you say, the feds don't have jurisdiction, you've got nothing to worry about. C'mon prove me wrong.

RE: Kuglin
Quote:
Were there not jurisdiction based upon Art.I Section 8 paragraph 1 there wouldn't have even been a court hearing

No - wrong again. See United States v. Adams. Just because the Federal government is trying to run a prosecutiuon outside of their jurisdiction does not mean they are correct in their assumption - or are able to prove their case.

Oh for crying out loud, LAK. You can think whatever you want about the legitimacy of the jurisdiction of the IRS to act, but the fact of the matter remains there WAS jurisdiction. The IRS had jurisdiction to bring the case against Vernice Kuglin. If there was no jurisdiction they would not have been in court as it would have necessarily been raised in a pretrial motion (see FRCP 12(b)(3)).

Gosh Shaggy, you mean if I can prove "I had no criminal intent" I can get off any Federal charge? You are really stretching credibility now. I know intent is a crucial element in securing a conviction; how many major Federal cases has that blocked a major Federal case in the last forty years Shaggy? The jury found Kuglin not guilty as charged. Fact.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the italicized part, but if its that lack of intent is seldom enough to get a defendant off the hook, you're probably right. But it IS the law and people do get off for lack of intent (geez, here's a good one: Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994)).

The jury found Kuglin not guilty as charged. Fact.

Yes they did. And it was because they didn't think she had the requisite level of intent. A jury decides questions of fact such as whether she had the requisite level of criminal intent and whether she committed the act giving way to criminal liability. The jury does not decide questions of law - such as what the law is, how it is applied to the facts of the case, whether the IRS has jurisdiction to bring the case, and/or whether the law is valid. Those are questions of law which are only decided by a judge, not a jury. This is almost funny - you don't even know the function of a jury.

Hmmm, the case was not featured on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC - or the front page of the NY Times. I wonder why that is Shaggy.

Let me guess; it is fake? The case does not exists? Kuglin was really convicted and they won't cover stories that are untrue? Or perhaps

(shaking my head) A case reporter, smartass. Like West's Federal, Federal 2d (F.2d) and Federal 3d (F.3d), etc? The reason its not a reported case is that it sets no new legal precedent. None. And why? Because its a jury case and the jury doesn't decide any questions of law. The law was absolutely valid and enforceable and the IRS had jurisdiction to prosecute Vernice Kuglin. The only reason she got off was because the prosecution couldn't prove certain required factual elements - like mens rea.

 

[LAK]

Shaggy,

No need to use our Lord's name in vain when addressing me personally.

You could have looked at any "anti-government" website and found United Sates v. Adams you know - but here it is on a plate for you.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=312

Taxes are deducted at source. But speaking of courage of convictions; if you had the courage of your convictions you would not have spent so much time argueing why we should all capitulate to the political and legal perversions of our government.

I have the courage of my convictions Shaggy. You need to take a closer look at yours - whatever they might be.

You presume to know what I do, whether I file, what I write on my W-4s. The IRS "will bring civil and criminal charges that WILL stick"? Like in United States v. Kuglin?

I do not know where you got the idea that Kuglin's case hinged on the issue of jurisdiction. If you read it you will see that the issue was somewhat different. Neither did Kuglin's defense hinge on intent.

The only reason she got off was because the prosecution couldn't prove certain required factual elements

You see, at the very end here you yourself say something different.

Incidently, juries can ultimately judge the facts and the law. Perhaps it is you who do not know what the functions of a jury are. Very telling in this case were the preposterous "orders" of the prosecution to the Judge, and his reply. If the case was predicated as you insist, things would have gone much differently based on "the law" alone.

The reason this case wasn't widely publicized are blatantly obvious.

 

[shaggy]

LAK, I can hardly believe you can't figure this out.

You cited Adams as evidence the federal government must show territorial jurisdiction:

LAK, the territory under which acts regulated under the aegis of interstte commerce are the Unites States and every piece of land in it - regardles of wherther it is federal property

Bull! See United States v. Adams. What you say is simply, factually, not true.

"There you go again." - Ronald Reagan

Once again, you looked at the outcome of the case (the US didn't have jurisdiction), and assumed it validated your position. It doesn't.

Your main mistake is that Adams revolves around federal property which the US government has exclusive jurisdiction over pursuant to Art. I, Section 8, clause 17. It has NOTHING to do with jurisdiction pursuant to the Commerce Clause, Art. I Section 8, clause 3.

The territorial jurisdiction over federal lands is different from the territorial jurisdiction over things in and affecting interstate commerce. The territorial jurisdiction over which Congress can legislate pursuant to clause 17 is federal properties. The territorial jurisdiction over which Congress can legislate pursuant to clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) is any federal, state, or private property in the United States. Do you understand that? A different clause of the Constitution gives rise to different jurisdiction for Congress to legislate. Clause 17 does not override or suprecede clause 3 of Art. I Section 8 of the Constitution. Clause 17 deals with the jurisdiction to legislate and control federal properties only. Clause 3 deals with the jurisdiction to legislate and control anything in or affecting interstate commerce ANYWHERE in the Unites States.


Nevertheless, in your effort to come up with something you completely disregarded that in Adams and assumed that because the state can have concurrent jurisdiction over federal properties within that state, it means that legislation premised under Congressional authority in a completely different part of the Constitution, not even dealing with federal properties, is subject to the same territorial jurisdiction requirements of clause 17. Holy crap, LAK, you can't just mix and match jurisdictional or territorial requirements as you want to or as may convenient for your purposes. Hell, Adams really didn't even involve a Constitutional question - it was about the filing requirements of a 1940 Act (40 USC 255) which the government didn't properly do prior to charging the soldiers with rape. Since both the state and federal government can have concurrent jurisdiction within that state, a mechanisim was instituted so the state and federal government could work together. And thats your basis for thinking the Commerce Clause has a territorial jurisdiction of just federal properties? Again, if you you're going to cite cases, it would really help if you would read them and fully understand them first.

Here's a challenge for you: show me a law based solely upon Congress' power to regulate under the Commerce Clause which was held invalid or successfully challenged in court on the specific and limited grounds the alleged activity didn't occur on federal property.

Taxes are deducted at source....
You presume to know what I do, whether I file, what I write on my W-4s. The IRS "will bring civil and criminal charges that WILL stick"? Like in United States v. Kuglin?

LAK, if you think the federal government can only apply federal law on federal property why are you paying your taxes? Do you like supporting that federal government you think is so out of control? If you're right in your assessment, you could easily overstate your deductions to reducen how much is taken at the source and then just not file a return on April 15. I mean really - why would you file if you've underpaid?

The answer is simple. Because you know the IRS will come knocking and charge you with criminal and civil penalties. I'll deal with Kuglin below...

You said:

I do not know where you got the idea that Kuglin's case hinged on the issue of jurisdiction. If you read it you will see that the issue was somewhat different. Neither did Kuglin's defense hinge on intent.

Show me where I said her case hinged on jurisdiction. In fact this is my quote from post #79:

Kuglin had NOTHING to do with the jurisdiction of the federal government to tax an individual. Were there not jurisdiction based upon Art.I Section 8 paragraph 1 there wouldn't have even been a court hearing - it would have been dismissed on motion long before anyone got into the courtroom and we'd all be jumping for joy in the streets at not having to pay any income taxes.

You were the one who implied Kuglin hinged on jurisdiction when in post #80 you said:

RE: Kuglin
Quote:
Were there not jurisdiction based upon Art.I Section 8 paragraph 1 there wouldn't have even been a court hearing

No - wrong again. See United States v. Adams. Just because the Federal government is trying to run a prosecutiuon outside of their jurisdiction does not mean they are correct in their assumption - or are able to prove their case.

And you say I'm dodging? Thats a laugh. You don't even know what your own position is.

If you read it you will see that the issue was somewhat different. Neither did Kuglin's defense hinge on intent.

Quote:
The only reason she got off was because the prosecution couldn't prove certain required factual elements

You see, at the very end here you yourself say something different.

Whether she had intent IS an issue of fact. She got off for lack of intent because the jury believed her claim that when she read the IRS manual and the statutes she didn't think was a "taxpayer" as defined by the law. Notice at the end of the case the following discourse:

MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin
on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court
ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got
to file returns and --

MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be
cleaned up totally.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not
incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also
saying is there will still be civil penalties.

MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters
to be coming pretty quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil
proceedings, and she is going to being take
responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to
respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.​

The attorney for the IRS is "putting her on notice" on the record so she cannot get off for a lack of mens rea again. Additionally, did you not notice the judge agreed with the attorney for the IRS that it is the law? Did you not notice that she is still liable for the civil penalties?

Incidently, juries can ultimately judge the facts and the law.

Oh geez, here we go with jury nullification; like I haven't heard this baloney before.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with deciding questions of law. Jury nullification is simply when a jury ignores the facts presented and refuses to convict. A good example may be the O.J. Simpson trial. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary the jury refused to convict OJ Simpson. They didn't decide on the law, only the application of the particular facts of the case to the law. By refusing to convict they didn't invalidate the law in California, nor did they create any precedent for future cases (since they were only deciding on questions of fact particular to the case, not questions of law). They merely decided to ignore the facts as presented.

The reason this case wasn't widely publicized are blatantly obvious.

Yes LAK, its all a big government conspiracy, isn't it? The reason it wasn't published in a case reporter or any major media sources is the same as I outlined above. The case was a jury case so it didn't invalidate any law, nor did it create any precedent for future cases. The jury only decided upon the facts of the case, and the particular facts about Vernice Kuglin would be irrelevant to someone else's case.

 

[LAK]

Shaggy,

I did cite Adams in error - in as much as it was not my intent to cite it as a "successful challenge to the commerce clause" in relation to what I cut and paste from your post.

But we do know all about the "commerce clause", so I do not know why you keep trying to rehash it. And I have also clearly stated already that it has been perverted a great number of times. The only disagreement we have is that you support it - I don't.

... Wait! As I read on - suddenly you agree with my position again:

Holy crap, LAK, you can't just mix and match jurisdictional or territorial requirements as you want to or as may convenient for your purposes.

That is exactly what YOU are proposing with this legislation. So which is it going to be Shaggy? Mix and match? Or as the Constitution states and was intended?

Since both the state and federal government can have concurrent jurisdiction within that state, a mechanisim was instituted so the state and federal government could work together

Yes, we know this too Shaggy. I have worked in such areas, and even some that ran concurrent with foreign jurisdiction. But there are many places in all the States where the State retains exclusive jurisdiction

The issue of how I deal with income tax is a dead horse for you here Shaggy. I am not about to discuss it with you, except to say that I do not lie on W-4s.

On Kuglin and jurisdiction, you said:

Were there not jurisdiction based upon Art.I Section 8 paragraph 1 there wouldn't have even been a court hearing

I said:

No - wrong again. See United States v. Adams. Just because the Federal government is trying to run a prosecutiuon outside of their jurisdiction does not mean they are correct in their assumption - or are able to prove their case

In US v Adams it was ruled that the Federal government did not have jurisdiction. Got that? Yet they had still pursued the case; so the Federal government does take on prosecutions that are not under it's jurisdiction.

You insist that Kuglin was aquitted was on the grounds of lack of intent - on all six counts? How do you know; do you have a transcript of the jury deliberations?

And on the subject of jury nullification ... What did Chief Justice John Jay have to say about that? How about Samuel Chase? There is plenty of material on this subject contained in cases like, State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et al., 3 U.S. 1 (Dall.) (1794), Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 US 135 (1920), United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969) - etc.

 

[Control Group]

This has been beyond fascinating. If I'm understanding your positions correctly, you're arguing two different things. LAK, I believe you're claiming that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority under the commerce clause to mandate nationwide CCW. You're right, they don't.

Shaggy, you're arguing that the federal government does have practical authority under the commerce claus to mandate national CCW. You're right, they do.

The key difference, here, is the word "Constitutional" in my interpretation of LAK's position, and "practical" in my interpretation of Shaggy's.

LAK, the fact of the matter is that the commerce clause has been abused for decades, and will continue to be abused for more decades. But you're as aware of this as I am. You don't want to see it abused again, even in the name of nationwide CCW reciprocity. I admire your principles, and the courage of your convictions.

Shaggy, the fact of the matter is that the commerce clause has been abused for decades, and will continue to be abused for more decades. But you're as aware of this as I am. You're willing to make use of the current powers government has effectively been granted to achieve nationwide reciprocity, which otherwise is unlikely to happen. I admire your pragmatism.

But there's no way a man arguing his principles can "win" a debate against a man arguing pragmatism, or vice versa. You're each holding yourselves to different standards of success, and becoming frustrated when the other holds you to his standard rather than yours. This is clearly going nowhere. All the case law in the world won't change it. LAK is unwilling to bend his principles, even to accomplish what we all acknowledge would be a positive end. Shaggy is exhibiting what a Marine might call "adaptability," and is willing to dance with the devil to accomplish what we all acknowledge would be a positive end.

That being said, I do have one question for you, LAK, and I don't intend it to be loaded in any way. In your opinion, does the 14th protect the 2nd? That is, under the Constitution, is the 2nd an incorporated right? Note that I ask this ignoring case law (wherein clearly, it is not an incorporated right), in the same manner that I believe the commerce clause has been abused, ignoring case law (wherein clearly, it has not, since all the agencies and whatnot based upon its abuse are still active).

 

[Hugh Damright]

willing to dance with the devil to accomplish what we all acknowledge would be a positive end.

I do NOT think federalizing CCW would be a positive end. We are founded upon the principle that the US is too big to be under a national government, and if we federalize/nationalize CCW, I believe that what MUST eventually result is despotic CCW laws.

 

[LAK]

Control Group,

The period during and immediately following the War between the States was, as I am sure many will agree, a pivotal point in our history. In effect it turned us onto the road the Federalists had desired from the beginning. So as you understand the context of what I write, I will say that the 14th Amendment and it's subsequent argueable incorporation was a grave error, and a usurpation. But with the desire to keep this thread on course I am not going to go into it other than to say that I would have been wearing the gray. Federal power and the diminishing States has been steady progress since that time, and we will be paying the price here very soon.

This is the crux of my "principled" arguement against being "pragmatic"; the pragmatic approach ignores the trap. And a fatal trap it is.

But examining the 14th as it stands, the term "liberty" might reasonably be construed to include individual rights under the 2nd Amendment. We are speaking in the legal term of codification here, as the right to keep and bear arms goes beyond the codification in the 2nd; in that it is the right of any free man as alluded to (though not specifically) in the Declaration of Independence in defense of self, family, property etc, and specifically in the writings of Jefferson and many others.

That it might fall under the term "liberty" is the only reasonable possibility, as it certainly can not be considered a "privilege" etc. This, as I have stated earlier and elsewhere might be the only legal and logical avenue of a challenge to State infringements the SCOTUS. But limited to "licensed" handgun carry, itself an infringement, a successful challenge would give credibility to the idea that the States can force free men to bear certain arms under license only, with fees and other conditions.

The question as to incorporation of the Bill of Rights - specifically the 2nd Amendment - really boils down to whether it was intended from the start. Judging by the way the courts have selectively and progressively recognized "parts" of the Bill of Rights as being incorporated, I am inclined to believe that it was never intended to be so. There is a pattern of Federal judicial subversion in this country going back a very long way, parallel with similarly progressive Federal legislation. These combined with a succession of disloyal Executive administrations have brough us to where we are today; playing by the perverted rules of their game is not going to save us.

 

[Control Group]

I do NOT think federalizing CCW would be a positive end.

Sorry, I was ambiguous - the "positive end" to which I was referring was the right of someone to concealed carry anywhere in the nation, assuming that person was granted that right by his home state. I did not mean to imply that nationalization of CCW would itself be a positive end, rather, that nationalization of CCW would be the means to the positive end of guaranteeing your right to carry would be recognized when you leave the borders of your state.

 

[Control Group]

The question as to incorporation of the Bill of Rights - specifically the 2nd Amendment - really boils down to whether it was intended from the start. Judging by the way the courts have selectively and progressively recognized "parts" of the Bill of Rights as being incorporated, I am inclined to believe that it was never intended to be so. There is a pattern of Federal judicial subversion in this country going back a very long way, parallel with similarly progressive Federal legislation. These combined with a succession of disloyal Executive administrations have brough us to where we are today; playing by the perverted rules of their game is not going to save us.

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the metaphorical head, here. There's no doubt that the intent of the founders has been largely ignored since the end of the Civil War*. The enormous growth of federal authority in the ensuing century and a half is evidence enough of that. That being said, appeal to "the intent of the founders" is not, by itself, a compelling argument. Technically, it's "appeal to authority," and logically suspect. The founders themselves recognized this, which is why they built in methodologies for changing the law of the land (the amendment process, judicial review, and the second amendment itself are examples). This is not to say that their intent should be ignored - it should still be guiding principle, but it's not gospel.

The question is should a state have the authority to selectively respect the fundamental rights of its citizens - particularly, their enumerated rights in the Constitution? Or does their enumeration in the Constitution guarantee those rights to all citizens of the US, regardless of their state of citizenship? Given the 14th, we know how this was decided post-War Between the States. Note that these are rhetorical questions, insofar as you've pretty clearly stated your beliefs on this.

However, in terms of the founders' intent, consider the text of the 1st as opposed to the text of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. The first specifically begins "Congress shall make no law," while the others make unqualified statements about the rights of the people. Frankly, this implies to me that if any of the enumerated rights in the BoR shouldn't be incorporated it's the first. As opposed to the 2nd, for example, which simply says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," without naming a specific actor prohibited from engaging in the infringement. Only the first specifies an actor.

In my mind, this legitimizes the enforcement of the BoR on the states. (This is supported by the extensive argument at the time over the inclusion of the first amendment, as opposed, again, to the second, which sailed through without protest)

Fast-forward to today, and recognize that the courts and the federal government have systematically reduced, qualified, and defanged the second. Given the SCOTUS' reluctance (some might say mule-stubborn refusal) to issue a decision regarding the second, is it within the purview of the Congress to legislate protection of the second, overriding the states? Can, as a part of the "checks and balances" system, the Congress pass laws to rectify a failure of the judicial branch to properly uphold the Constitution? If not, what check exists on judicial authority? Is impeachment/removal of offending justices adequate? Is the only recourse of the Congress amendment of the Constitution? If so, then why hasn't the 14th been enough? I believe these are all directly applicable to the nationwide CCW reciprocity bill, but also more generally.

Let's say that the SCOTUS handed down a decision that the term "arms" refers only to such weapons technology as was available to the founders, and your right to have any firearm invented after, say, 1800, is not protected by the Constitution. I think we would all agree this would be a gross misinterpretation of both the Constitution and the intent of the founders, but what would be our recourse, if not an act of the Congress?

(Please understand that I am undecided on the current national CCW reciprocity issue, so if I seem to be arguing for it, I'm simply trying to elicit as much of your point of view as possible in order to make my own decision. Should Shaggy put in another appearance, I promise to devil's advocate for the opposing POV, as well )

*As a born-and-raised northerner, I of course refer to it as the Civil War. While writing this, I was conscious of my word choice as opposed to "War Between the States" or "War of Northern Aggression," insofar as I don't particularly want to offend anyone. I ultimately decided on "Civil War" because I don't, in principle, choose to change terminology simply to appease others. However, it occurs to me that the difference between "War Between the States" and "Civil War" is more than just Southern "sour grapes" over the way it went (as I, thoughtlessly, previously believed). The very term "Civil War" is loaded, insofar as it presumes supremacy of the national government over the states, with its implication of rebellion against legitimate authority. I may have to begin using "War Between the States" for this reason, since it's a more accurate term.

 

[Hugh Damright]

I think trying to use the US BOR to limit the States is insanity. The Constitution creates a limited federal US government, but a government with jurisdiction over rights is a national government. A lot of people think they are doing the right thing by federalizing rights, but all they do is attack and destroy our constitutional form of government.

And speaking of attacking the Constitution, I believe that the best name for the Civil War, the most accurate and descriptive name, would be "the Yankee Jihad against Constitutional Government".

 

[Control Group]

The Constitution creates a limited federal US government, but a government with jurisdiction over rights is a national government.

Oh, come now. Article IV, section 2 specifically states "[t]he citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." How is that not defining jurisdiction over rights? One can choose to interpret that to mean that a state may not infringe the rights of a citizen granted by another state, or that a state may not infringe the rights of a citizen granted by the body of the states, but either way it's a Constitutional statement of what rights states can and cannot choose to protect.

Do you honestly believe the founders intended to allow a state to deny its citizens RKBA, quarter its militia in citizen's houses with neither warning nor permission, demand citizens incriminate themselves in court, hold citizens without trial for indefinite periods of time, conduct weekly searches of a citizen's home and person, try citizens repeatedly for the same offense until a guilty verdict was achieved, so on and so forth?

If that was their intent, why specify in the first amendment that "Congress shall make no law," (as opposed to, presumably, the states) but not specificy the same in the other amendments?

Not to mention that, albeit as a direct result of the war, the 14th amendment was ratified into the Constitution according to the amendment process specified therein, and is undeniably the law of the land.

Fundamentally, while the intent was certainly an association of relatively independent states, the intent was also that the association be a stronger one than simply a treaty. The states are not, and were never intended to be, independent nations, or there would be no need for a federal government at all. The very fact that the Constitution repeatedly refers to a "citizen of the United States" indicates that there is a legitimate national identity.

And, while I didn't particularly want to get involved in a debate over the correct name for the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression, your proposed name for it deliberately ignores the realities of the situation. The Constitution makes no provision for states to secede from the union. In fact, Article I, section 10 specifically prohibits states from "entering into any treaty, alliance, or confederation," as well as from "enter[ing] into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." Note the distinction between "another state" and "a foreign power," lest it be claimed that the "another state" referred to is a state outside the union. Irrespective of motivation, secession of states from the union is not a Constitutional option. In much the same fashion as treason against the union is unconstitutional, despite Jefferson's beliefs regarding the blood of patriots and the tree of liberty. If a revolution starts, the government has the Constitutional authority to defeat it.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Oh my God! I don't even know where to begin ...

The 14th "Amendment" was not ratified according to the amendment process. It failed every step of the amendment process. It failed the House. It failed the Senate. It failed the States. And it was forced upon us at gunpoint and it means whatever they want it to mean.

The States were and are intended to be sovereign nations. That is what was declared on the 4th of July. There were 13 new nations born on that day. The States have Constitutions, they have flags, we are citizens of our State ... and US Citizenship did not come along until it was invented by the 14th "Amendment" and forced upon us, against our will.

It is not a question of whether the Founders intended the States to deny this right or that right. The States came first and they did not create the US to be their master and tell them what their rights are. The States created the US to handle affairs outside of their jurisdiction. And the States are to remain sovereign in their own internal affairs. The Constitution creates a SCOTUS that has no jurisdiction over affairs between a Citizen and his State.

The Constitution does not prohibit secession, therefore it is a States' right. Also, the Federalist Papers promised that the States were to be bound only by their own voluntary act. And many States, including mine, specified in our ratification of the US Constitution that we reserved the right of Virginians to alter and abolish our government and that means secede.

The Bill of Rights did not originally limit the States ...

I'll just stop here. If you care to pick one specific key point I may engage the topic. But I cannot debunk ten myths at a time.

 

[Garand Illusion]

I'll just stop here. If you care to pick one specific key point I may engage the topic. But I cannot debunk ten myths at a time.

Thanks for stopping. I was laughing so hard I couldn't read the screen any more .

I actually know that much of what you're saying was true (it's all probably true, I haven't done the research). The constitution was never supposed to have any bearing on state law whatsoever (including the 2nd amendment) and the 14th was passed after the civil war and while I haven't reviewed the process I don't doubt there were irregularities.

But it's ancient history. The 14th has been accepted by generations of Americans and it IS now part of the constitution. You don't get to change that. It's not like you can go to SCOTUS and they'll say, "Hey, wait a minute -- the last hundred and fifty years of rulings need to be set aside. This guy from TFL is ON to something."

Neither does the US fully honor all of it's treaties with Indians (since they were forced to be citizens at gunpoint in the 20's) nor have we returned back the land we seized from Mexicon in the war. It's ancient history.

And most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[LAK]

Control Group

Oh, come now. Article IV, section 2 specifically states "[t]he citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." How is that not defining jurisdiction over rights?

I would have to say no.

Article IV Sec 2 refers to and specifies "privileges and immunities" - neither of which can be confused or ajoined with the term "rights".

The more I examine the subject, the more I am inclined to agree with Hugh about the general relationship between the BORs in the Constitution and the States.

And for those who doubt the original structure and intent; here is a logical question. How many State Constitutions enumerate the rights of it's citizens in the context of keeping and bearing arms for example, which repeat those in the BORs? If the BORs in the Constitution bind the States - why on earth would these States have included what are such superfluous inclusions?

As far as the importance of the overall original intent and structure established by our nation's founders, I would say that it is more important today than it has ever been.

Can, as a part of the "checks and balances" system, the Congress pass laws to rectify a failure of the judicial branch to properly uphold the Constitution? If not, what check exists on judicial authority? Is impeachment/removal of offending justices adequate?

The impeachment of the offending judges is the logical action where the lower Federal and SCOTUS have repeatedly ruled contrary to the Constitution. Once a few judges get impeached, the others would get the message. Right now this country is being to a large extent ruled by a long out of control Judiciary.

The States also need to exercize their jurisdiction where they still fully retain it and send a clear message to Congress and the Executive they will not tolerate Federal interference in State matters.

Ah, many will say; "that ain't gonna happen". Really? Well, it is funny that a judge and local authority in a certain State recently openly thumbed their noses at the Federal Congress - and the State - and publicly murdered a handicapped woman. See any indictments? U.S. Marshals? National Guard? Federal troops? No; arguements about the case aside, the judge didn't budge an inch, and the local police said to the State in effect, "You come here, and we are going to enforce the court order". In other words, "We will use force".

We had a similar case in reverse some years back when the Federal government seized a certain boy in the same State and basically extradited him to a communist country. Now if the governor at the time had surrounded the place heavily with local, State police, and National Guard - and had issued a clear statement to the effect that any attempt to remove him in violation of the local court would be met with force - do you think that the INS would have performed their little commando raid and tried to take him anyway? I don't believe so.

So it seems that the exercize of power in these regards, if announced, enacted openly and forcefully, will usually prevail. What we need is local authority, State Legislatures and Governors who are not just "conservative", but with backbones as well. Not more Federal "laws".

 

[arcticap]

Individual Rights VS. Government Power

The primary purpose of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were one and the same, to create and preserve one nation which is, was, and forever shall be a Representative Democracy of, by and for the people. It is the glue that makes the states stick. The nation was not intended to be caught in a constant tug of war between state's versus federal rights or wrongs, but rather as a Republic where governmental authority was limited in favor of individual rights and liberties be it social, religious or economic. It's clearly in the realm of all government to serve to promote individual rights by being limited. Unfortunately today, it's not the federal government action, but rather inaction that's infringing on the rights of individuals to CCW across state lines against the power of the states. During the civil war, it wasn't the federal government that was infringing on the rights of negros to be free men. And during the revolutionary war, it was not the rebellious colonial state governments who were infringing on the rights of individuals to be free from taxation without representation. Yes, a nation of states was founded voluntarily based on the sole notion of a national congress based upon 1. population 2. state equality abiding by the rules of representational democracy, which were sent to Washington elected by the state legislatures. Free states forming a union under the principles of one man, one vote and one state, two votes. The deal was sealed. Democracy would rule under the rules set forth under the Constitution and individual liberties would be protected from the tyranny of state and federal power. Sure, some states wanted out of the deal and the Civil War was fought. But the protection of individual liberties was eventually preserved from governmental infringement. It had nothing to do with state rights, but rather state wrongs. When the succession occurred, they were no longer states acting in a limited, democratic fashion. The judge WAS the war. Historical revision doesn't change a thing. Similiarly, always judging issues from the perspective of state vs. federal doesn't change the fact that our nation's government is founded on limiting the damage that any body of authority can do to the individuals of which it is composed. If a national ccw is to ever pass, it most certainly wouldn't be at the expense of the majority of states or individuals for that matter, but rather for their promotion. It's just a matter of time before the institutions will work and the representatives will truely represent, if a strong enough majority of states and individuals consent. Now what's taking so long? Too many states and their representatives protecting their turf at the federal level and not enough federal power being exercised in defense of the 2nd Amendment, judges included, willing to protect their turf, and that which rightly belongs to individual citizens. What's not to believe?

 

[Hugh Damright]

I was laughing so hard I couldn't read the screen ... The constitution ... it's ancient history ...
And most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

So .... you think your disrespect for the Constitution makes you somehow superior? I don't see it that way.

The primary purpose of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were one and the same, to create and preserve one nation which is, was, and forever shall be a Representative Democracy of, by and for the people.

That is false. The Revolutionary War and the Civil War were both fought in the name of free and independent States i.e secession. The States are the representative democracies.

My God, how can you people hang out on a forum about a Constitutional Amendment (i.e. the 2nd) and not even know what form of government the Constitution creates?

I will just make the point that US powers are properly delegated by the States by Constitutional amendment, and each State gets one vote. California has 70 times as many Citizens as Wyoming, but both States get one vote when it comes to ratifying amendments. So to me, that is not "of the people" ... if it was "of the people" then Wyoming would get one vote and California would get 70. RIGHT? But since each State gets one ratification vote, then the US is empowered by the States, or if you prefer, by the people AS FIFTY SOVEREIGNTIES.

 

[arcticap]

And how does each state decide how to cast it's one vote?

 

[arcticap]

Does it perform a coin toss to help it decide how it will vote?

You don't really expect that the Federal Government would allow such an interstate issue as national CCW reciprocity to be completely left up to each and every individual state forever, do you?
At some point in history, any resonable person would be able to imagine that the Federal Government might begin to exercise it's Constitutional perogative in the matter, especially in light of the way that pendulums have a tendency to "swing", right?
If you ask me, that's the best way that the former Confederacy could finally "Rise Again" and enforce some Federal law & order over the rebellious Northern states that have totally mutated and mutilated their own state constitutions in many cases, and trampled upon the rights of their own citizens to self defense through CCW, or any other method of firearms carry.
It's a total travesty of justice and law. The Federal Government didn't let the South use state sovereignty as an acceptable reason then, and it's just a matter of time before the Federal Government will "yank" the state sovereignty excuse out from under the former Union states too, if you or I only live long enough to see the day. But that isn't likely going to happen too soon, if too many state's rightists entrenched in many parts of the country don't start to see the light and decide to save this country from the continuing injustice of mostly state & Supreme Court origin.
I want you to know Hugh Damright, and any others of contrary opinion to my own, that I'm not trying to invalidate your perspective with my next statement, but rather attempting to objectify our different perspectives. You distrust the Federal Government and don't want it to hurt your state's sovereignty by limiting any of your current 2nd Amendment rights. I don't blame you. However, I live in a state where reciprocity barely exists, the gun laws are extremely arbitrary, and the State Supreme Court won't enforce a State Constitutional Amendment from the 1970's that explicitly gives each citizen the right to bear arms for self-defense. As a U.S. citizen, who or what am I to turn to for just relief? I look to the Federal Government to save the day here, not because I don't distrust it, but because I think it can be controlled and limited and useful for performing it's created purpose. I would rather everyone have "the right" through Federal means which would be much more difficult to take away, then to only have rights conferred to the lesser few through state means, where nothing, as my illustration tried to convey, ever has a chance of changing due to overwhelming lack of support, despite the Amendment passed here. So, now you may understand better why I have no choice but to appeal to the use of Federal power and in turn, to those like yourself, who oppose it. I am not afaid of the Federal Government, you are. We can't lose what we don't have. You however, are not currently afraid of losing your cherished rights, while here we have already lost many, and I'm currently afraid that it's only going to get worse, before it could possibly get any better.

 

[LAK]

arcticap

The Federal Government didn't let the South use state sovereignty as an acceptable reason then, and it's just a matter of time before the Federal Government will "yank" the state sovereignty excuse out from under the former Union states too, if you or I only live long enough to see the day

Don't kid yourself; if the Federal government "yanks" the sovereignty out of those former Union States on this issue - it will not be because they support your right to keep and bear arms. It will amount to permission, with all the attendant conditions, fees etc. And sooner or later it's going to turn into a "We all need a Federal standard". So people that currently reside in States like Vermont and Alaska where nothing is required, and States where the requirements are mild and cheap, will at some point have to "be reasonable" and get with the "standard". And it is not going to begin and stay with some minor fee and a bit of paper.

However, I live in a state where reciprocity barely exists, the gun laws are extremely arbitrary, and the Sate Supreme Court won't enforce a State Constitutional Amendment from the 1970's that explicitly gives each citizen the right to bear arms for self-defense. As a U.S. citizen, who or what am I to turn to for just relief?

You can work to oust your local anti-2nd sheriffs, other elected county, local and State officials. Much better chances than trying to influence the Federal government. Or, you can vote with your feet and move to a State that let's you exercize your right freely without permission, without taxing it, and without any required paper. Or the others that require a modest fee and condition for the permission to strap one on under a shirt of jacket instead.

You see, you are at liberty to move to any State in the Union to enjoy the rights of any particular State. If you want to centralize the administration of your rights in all States to a central body - what are you going to do when that central body decides that a few speeding tickets or other "crime" under the infraction rule, or perhaps "bad credit", are determined by the central body to bar you from wearing a handgun?

Who is going to rescue your rights then? Another George Bush? Another Bill Clinton? Arnold?

In case you haven't noticed, aside from some little morsels here and there, like "allowing the assault weapons ban to sunset", not a single administration in the Federal government - "republican" or "democrat" - has really done anything to rollback the major infringements of the 2nd Amendment at Federal level.

We have no reason to "trust" the Federal government since all governments tend, by their nature, to gravitate towards greater power and control. It is historical matter of fact, and precisely why the founders of ours structured it in the fashion they did. You are advocating further opening the door to the worst enemy of our system of government - more Federal power and control.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Some Common Sense Please

There are some very good and obviously well-thought-out posts on this most important topic.

Whatever our "robust dialogue" does, I hope it stimulates us all to do the following:

1. Pick UP the phone, and call the local offices of our Senators and our Congress Critters and urge them to Co-Sponsor the Legislation;

2. Send an e-mail once per week to the same folks, urging them on a weekly basis to Co-Sponsor the Legislation;

I try to write my e-mails in a way that the TOPIC line gets attention and gets them read. Mine usually have a topic line such as "Thanks, Senator" or "You're on the Right Track". I then go on to thank them for supporting law-abiding citizens against criminals, or for supporting tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, or other things like that and within a sentence or two tell them that the "NEXT STEP" is to support National Reciprocity for CCW for law-abiding citizens in this age of terrorism and crime.

We can't just write or call them once and forget about it. We need to keep the pressure up or the topic will fade from the immediacy of their consciouisness.