People Who Keep Their Guns Aren't Breaking The Law
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
A matter of semantics.
Might makes victory
The victors make the Laws
The victors write the history
The victors educate your children
The victors define what becomes your culture
Your children and their victors' culture then decide the Right.
And that Right is decided...and enforced... by force of arms . . . .
Never -- ever -- think otherwise.
BTW: That is what the 2nd Amendment (and Federalist #46) recognize as basis of defining and defending the Right.
Just a thought.
You just knew I'd bring this back around . . . .
Right ?
.
Last edited:
If the U.S. citizens decide the Constitution needs to be changed, there is a method set up to do that and it has been used in the past.
That doesn't change the fact that the new Constitution, after the changes, would be subject to interpretation by SCOTUS.
If you think that you can do what you want, regardless of the law (which is governed by the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS), and then brush away any threat of arrest or prosecution by saying that what you did is protected by the second amendment, you have another think coming. Unfortunately, the way the system is currently set up, that will not be an effective tactic.
Even a successful rebellion doesn't mean that you will get what you want, unless you manage to become dictator in the final outcome. Ultimately, the government, whether it's the current one, or a new one set up after a revolution, has rules and laws and a constitution and no single person (short of them being a dictator) is going to get to do everything they want with impunity based on their personal interpretation of the laws and constitution.
Anyway, the bottom line is that breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of how one personally interprets the 2A.
Double Naught Spy
New member
You may want to reread your Constitutional law.
Im not talking about just me Im talking about the American citizens as a whole.
Im not talking about me becoming a dictator Im talking about the American citizens as a whole, those that are for the 2A, stopping the government from violating the 2A. It has happened before, where the government was made to stand down by the citizens, such as in the Bundy standoff.
And that also applies to the government, the government has to obey the law too, and that includes respecting the 2A.
Yes, if you believe that a statute is unconstitutional, you can try to get SCOTUS to rule on it.
Until they do, it's the law and you must abide by it if you wish to avoid the risk of arrest and prosecution.
If you flaunt a law, you can expect to be arrested and prosecuted, and your interpretation of the Constitution will NOT be a defense against that. At issue will be your compliance with EXISTING law and EXISTING SCOTUS rulings. Maybe you will be able to appeal if found guilty and get a SCOTUS ruling that changes existing law, if SCOTUS agrees with you, but that's far from a sure thing.
I listed rebellion as an option.
As far as the Bundy deal goes, there were arrests and prosecutions. A few were found guilty, there were some mistrials and some were found not guilty. If you go up against the LE, you can expect to be arrested and prosecuted. Maybe you will be acquitted, maybe not.
Yes, but what you keep ignoring is that there are very specific ways to do that legally. Resisting the actions of LE is not one of the prescribed ways to change laws or get the government to change.
Taking that approach will result in arrest and prosecution, and barring a pretty unlikely outcome (your case makes it all the way to SCOTUS on appeal and they agree with you), it will not change anything except to make your life miserable.
Your premise is flawed:
1. You don't get to decide what the 2A means. PERIOD. SCOTUS does.
2. Even if LE is acting illegally to curtail activities that you believe are legal under the 2A, that generally doesn't give you the right to do anything other than bring legal action against them.
3. If you want to start a rebellion, you need to understand that unless the rebellion replaces the government, you will be arrested and prosecuted. Even if your rebellion overthrows the government, the new government won't be you, exclusively (unless you become the ruling dictator), and so there will still be some organization(s) in that government that provide the official interpretation of the new Constitution and laws. So even then your personal interpretation of the new Constitution won't mean anything if it conflicts with those organizations.
The whole idea that a person can stymie LE actions by quoting some magic words is absolute nonsense. It doesn't matter if you say: "You're violating the 2A!" or "Abracadabra!", the cops are going to arrest you if you are breaking the law as they understand it. Even if it turns out you are right and you are eventually acquitted or the charges are dropped, if you resist LE actions, you will likely be prosecuted for resisting as a separate charge.
I think "step back" might be a better choice of words than "stand down". Bundy is still being sued for years of non payment of the grazing fees.
One of their people was killed. They occupied a building in a National Wildlife refuge that was closed for the winter, anyway. They were arrested and charged. They didn't "win" on the merits of their case, or the rightness of their actions. A judge ruled that the Fed bungled their case into a mistrial and ordered the charges dismissed.
If you're going to look at Bundy as a "win" then be sure to look at Randy Weaver and David Koresh and their families and followers. Those weren't "wins"
You might also consider that Bundy's dispute was essentially about not paying for grass his cows ate. Ruby Ridge and Waco were about claimed violations of firearms law. And how the response of the Govt (at the time) was several orders of magnitude different.
You might find a better example of armed citizens forcing govt to back down in the "battle of Athens GA". Look it up.
And note that one was over a crooked election and not Federal gun laws.
You might also look at the history of Colonial America and note how while not at all happy about it, colonists put up with lots of laws and restrictions they considered unfair and unwarranted, and the most that happened was the protest of the Boston Tea Party.
Until the (British) govt went after the arms and powder stored at Lexington and Concord.
Then, active rebellion began. April 19, 1775.
Double Naught Spy
New member
You apparently didn't pay close attention to American history.
And for the record, Bundy wasn't and isn't a common citizen, not financially.
https://digitalglobaltimes.com/cliven-bundy-net-worth/.
Of course, he is still in debt for another million bucks he hasn't paid.
Yes, we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, and the people's voice does matter. The election of govt officials and letting our will be known to our representatives is how that is done.
We, the people, do not get to micromanage the law or its enforcement directly or individually.
After harm is done, we seek redress through the court systems, and can (possibly) even get the law changed.
Whether or not we feel the law is wrong, we don't get to break the law without facing the legal consequences.
This is a long established legal principle. You and I don't get to decide when or where it gets applied. We get to decide on the people who make those decisions by voting. That's our voice in the general scheme of things.
We, the people, do not get to micromanage the law or its enforcement directly or individually.
After harm is done, we seek redress through the court systems, and can (possibly) even get the law changed.
Whether or not we feel the law is wrong, we don't get to break the law without facing the legal consequences.
This is a long established legal principle. You and I don't get to decide when or where it gets applied. We get to decide on the people who make those decisions by voting. That's our voice in the general scheme of things.
In the USA we don't believe in dictators, at least not in having any human dictator. If we do have a dictator it's the US Constitution, that is our dictator.
Ideally that's how it should be done, but the problem is when the people tell the government how to function, through legal means, and the government ignores it.
It's the US Constitution that decides what the 2A means and it's very cut and dry on how it spells it out. Not everything in the Constitution or the BOR is cut and dry but the 2A is.
That depends. Let's say a LE officer is trying to kill you, just for the heck of it. In that case he's trying to curtail the activity of you living. You're allowed to use any means to stop the officer from doing so, in a situation like that.
Yes and an example of that would be the Revolutionary War and the victory that resulted is how the very USA formed. After the Revolutionary War we did not have any human dictators because as I said before, in this country we don't believe in that. We did write up a Constitution however and certain parts of the Constitution were very cut and dry, not the least being the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. As a matter of fact the 2A is the very foundation, the very amendment that supports all the other amendments in the Bill Of Rights and in the US Constitution because its a final check and balance, if the government decides to ignore the Constitution the citizens can revolt and keep the government in check. The country's founders knew this, that's how our very country was formed when we won independence from Britain.
Not individually, but Im talking collectively.
That depends on what you mean by "harm." If the harm is your dignity and/or your life it's a different story.
That also depends. Sometimes the court will decide a law is wrong and thus the offender will face no legal consequences. There is stuff such as jury nullification.
Voting is the first course of action to take if you want change but its not flawless for various reasons, not the least being that politicians aren't always honest, as a matter of fact all too often they aren't.
I believe that what is sticking in People's craws is the perspectives of two very different views of "The Right."
#1. The officers of the Court believe that The Law is Uber Alles - sacrosanct in and of its itself.
It is both what makes a society civilized, and limits the divine right of Kings as well as the mob.
And they are right.
#2. "The People" see The Law as more complex, an instrumentality of justice, a limit upon the
powers of the government save by consent, and a restriction upon its Officers to actions within
that Law -- grounded in Constitutional protections. They further see that government by consent
implies the both privilege & duty to disobey if/when that Law and its officers depart from the
purposes of justice and/or the strictures of the Constitution. It's called "Civil Disobedience"
And they are right.
The crux is the circumstance of a "Lawful Order" -- which has the power under Law to compel
obedience or face criminal charges.
(But) I was always taught that in order for an order to be lawful, it must be legal. And that one
had the duty to disobey an illegal order.
(But) Orders given under the color of Law are generally presumed to be Lawful -- and to disobey
is at your peril. That peril is resolved only by the Courts (or courts martial) in most cases.
So while I tend balance both #1 and #2 -- I also know that rebellion against tyranny which has departed
from the Constitution carries great risk. For the Tyranny usually holds the instruments of power.
Choose carefully, and remember that although revolution is in our genes, so is hanging separately.
.
#1. The officers of the Court believe that The Law is Uber Alles - sacrosanct in and of its itself.
It is both what makes a society civilized, and limits the divine right of Kings as well as the mob.
And they are right.
#2. "The People" see The Law as more complex, an instrumentality of justice, a limit upon the
powers of the government save by consent, and a restriction upon its Officers to actions within
that Law -- grounded in Constitutional protections. They further see that government by consent
implies the both privilege & duty to disobey if/when that Law and its officers depart from the
purposes of justice and/or the strictures of the Constitution. It's called "Civil Disobedience"
And they are right.
The crux is the circumstance of a "Lawful Order" -- which has the power under Law to compel
obedience or face criminal charges.
(But) I was always taught that in order for an order to be lawful, it must be legal. And that one
had the duty to disobey an illegal order.
(But) Orders given under the color of Law are generally presumed to be Lawful -- and to disobey
is at your peril. That peril is resolved only by the Courts (or courts martial) in most cases.
So while I tend balance both #1 and #2 -- I also know that rebellion against tyranny which has departed
from the Constitution carries great risk. For the Tyranny usually holds the instruments of power.
Choose carefully, and remember that although revolution is in our genes, so is hanging separately.
.
Last edited:
1. You don’t want the USA system, you want a different system because you don’t want a system where SCOTUS is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution.
2. The Constitution is nothing like a dictator. What it says is subject to interpretation by SCOTUS and it can be overridden (amended) by the people with sufficient support.
What you are talking about isn’t “legal means”. You are talking about violating existing law based on a personal (non-SCOTUS endorsed, if you will) interpretation of the Constitution. By definition that is not legal.
That is absolutely incorrect. The Constitution STATES the second amendment, but it is SCOTUS that decides what it means. You may not like it, but that’s how it is and what you like or don’t like can not change reality.
1. You need to actually read what I’ve posted. I explicitly noted that TX law, at least, allows for legal resistance in circumstances where LE immediately uses greater force than is necessary.
2. A situation where LE is trying to murder someone “just for the heck of it”, isn’t what we’re discussing here and is quite different in several obvious ways from the topic at hand.
3. The quote you responded to includes the word “generally” specifically because there are some limited circumstances where it is legal to resist LE actions.
EXACTLY. And under that newly formed government, SCOTUS was given the power to interpret the Constitution and to provide binding rulings relating to its interpretation.
This is now the third time that I’m telling you that is an option when all else fails, assuming there’s enough support. BUT, again, assuming the revolution is successful, it still won’t allow everyone to have their own personal interpretation of the new Constitution and the new laws. That would be anarchy. If everyone gets to interpret the laws however they want, what's the point of even having laws? There will be some organization set up in the government that is the final authority on how the laws and Constitution will be interpretated and administered.
There’s no difference right up until there’s enough support to actually overthrow the government. Even if there is enough support to amend the Constitition, that won’t change the fact that the amended Constitution is still going to be interpreted by SCOTUS and their interpretation will be the law of the land, regardless of how any individual or collective interprets it differently.
Look, if you are serious about this, you need to do some study and thought, because your understanding of the situation is miserably (even dangerously) deficient.
Also, you are getting very close to advocating armed revolution, something that is not legal and something that would be extremely unwise to openly promote.
Perhaps one has some moral or idealistic duty to disobey illegal orders, but as you say, doing so will certainly bring the risk of arrest and prosecution.
More to the point, actually resisting the actions of LE even when those actions are illegal is probably still illegal. That is, even if LE is attempting an arrest or search, or seizure that turns out to be illegal, resisting that arrest or search will likely constitute a separate crime, in and of itself.
"harm" is defined in various laws. It can be physical harm to your person (or property) harm to your livelihood (such as a business) or it can be harm to you by suppression of your rights. Any or all together, some kind of harm must be recognized by the courts or you don't have standing to sue.
It need not be a tremendous amount, only enough to be recognized under the law.
Why and how a court rules a law "wrong" isn't the relevant topic at this point. What matters is that the law IS valid until the court rules it isn't.
IF the law broken is ruled invalid, then there was no law broken, and no penalties shall attach to that.
BUT, there are also situations where the law is not found invalid, and no penalties are attached if you are found justified. Self defense is one example of that.
No system is flawless, no option is without risk of failure, including revolution.
Also remember that politicians are not automatically dishonest if they don't listen to YOU.
What about orders that are immoral but legal? There is a trap here, in that an order can be entirely 100% legal, and yet be immoral and therefore unlawful.
This is one of the things studied after WWII and one of the principles used at War Crimes trials. Many war crimes were committed under the legal authority of the government that were immoral but were obeyed because they were "legal".
It our personal responsibility to recognize and disobey immoral orders. It is the responsibility of the ruling authority to recognize legal orders, or not.
There are nearly as many possible nuances and points of view as lawbooks have pages,
Morality and legality are not the same thing. A person can always act legally and still be immoral. A person can be moral and still commit crimes.
It may very well be that is true, however, it is critical to understand that even if it is, it will provide NO justification for breaking an existing law.
You can certainly do the "right thing" from a moral standpoint and end up being arrested, prosecuted and convicted for it.
The title of this thread is an excellent example. The OP believes that if people follow his interpretation of the second amendment, if they do what he believes is "right", they are not breaking the law. That's simply not true at all.
How we feel about actions doesn't make them legal or illegal.