Utah Guns Forum banner
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
That post on madorge (the second one) it pretty bold. I agree with him though. I think his essay would make an awesome letter to a legislator with some appropriate editing. Pretty bold of the author to come out and post something like that on the internet.....you never know where stuff ends up....

-PW
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Oh too true, bold indeed. Having family members who have done such bold things, however, I think he may have done so intentionally. Publishing things like that in public forums can serve as part of a defense later on should issues arise. While he may still be convicted, for example of CC'ing without a permit, he can respond to any allegations of criminal intent with this document which serves as a public "notice". Some people in my family have filed similar types of "notices" over the years with the County Clerk for this very reason; to aid in their defense later on, should it become necessary. I, for one, am not a fan of handling legal issues this route but it is done and does sometimes serve it's purpose.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
bane said:
Very well put. I appreciate your argument, and am even partially convinced!
Of course, you are likely to become an immediate martyr at that point, but I'm sure you are prepared for that.
Thank you for the well-reasoned response. I'll have to chew on it for a bit.
If it comes to that point, I think we will be ready for a few martyrs.

I read the two articles that PW posted, and they are compelling. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think posting such a "notice" on the internet, County Clerk's office, or a bathroom stall would aid in anyone's defense if arrested. Maybe because of the types of juries mentioned in the fff article.

I went to college to teach US History, and minored in Psychology, so I have studied cases of civil disobedience. Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, The Sons of Liberty, and of course Thoreau, who gave us the term, have used it to affect positive change and helped put an end to opression in their particular sphere. I am a big fan of this method, but I guess what I'm saying is my "line in the sand" is at a different latitude than the authors of these two articles. Perhaps I am too tolerant.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
T-Man said:
I voted "yes" :oops: because I believe in the rule of law. If we each set aside the laws that we disagree with, all we are left with is anarchy. As much as I believe that such a law would be an infringement of my rights, and I pray it never happens, if it did happen I could not justify turning myself into a criminal just because I disagree with a particular law. And I understand that forcing the registration of guns is a big step in taking them away, but as long as they are not being taken from my posession, I cannot argue that it is a direct violation of 2A. (i.e. I am still "keeping and bearing") Now, when the Gestapo comes to confiscate them, it will turn into a different story...
I voted yes and for mostly the same reasons. I took an oath uphold the State and U.S. Constitutions and City Ordinances and State and Federal Laws and I take oath very seriously.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
I read the to articles posted by PW and I agreed with some of what they said. It didn't really change my mind, but I enjoyed reading what they had to say.

Maybe I'm a little naive on this subject and I could be wrong, but I think some of the laws that some states have passed, regarding firearms, will not pass in Utah. I feel as long as we voice their opinions to the right people in the right way, our guns won't be taken from us.

We will still have to fight to keep Federal Laws or Weapons Bans from passing at the Federal level, but as long as voice our opinions loud and clear we should be able to fight it. The last Weapons Ban in 1994 didn't help in terms of crime, and a lot of the politicians who voted for it were voted out of office in the following election(s).

The main thing to remember is to keep voicing our opinions to the right people in the right way so we will be heard. Be active in letting politicians know what you think.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Hunter, I agree with what you have said -- 100%. I also took the same oath you did, and I took and still take it very seriously.

Like you, I think (however naively, or not) that the odds of having our weapons taken from us are pretty low SO LONG AS we voice ourselves and we REPRESENT OURSELVES correctly (i.e. always trying to be law-abiding and showing people around you that good guys can have guns and still be good -- thus, hopefully, gaining more supporters and voices).

This is a hypothetical poll, of course, but where I think we differ on this issue is that I view, based on my reading and understanding of history, national gun registries as the first of the last steps to totalitarianism -- the obvious implication from such an event would be the suspension of the U.S. Constitution. And I do not consider my oath to include upholding actions that would lead to such a suspension.

In other words, in my mind a federal registry would put our nation in a crisis and the Constitution would at that point be a mere formality -- our nation has been very close to such a situation a few times in the past, such as the Communist shakedowns during the earlier part of the "Cold" war, and fortunately we have successfully avoided that ultimate crisis.

But, as you, I have faith that we will continue to be able to avoid those moments of crisis so long as there are sizeable numbers of law-abiding citizens willing to practice *ALL* of their rights.
 
G

·
A law requiring already-owned handguns to be registered would violate the ex post facto principle and therefore be illegal according to the Constitution.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Car Knocker said:
Sorta like the Lautenberg Amendment is unconstitutional? In reality, something is only unconstitutional if the courts rule it so.
Huh. I'm not sure if that's 100% accurate. Well, maybe it's one of those "in the eye of the beholder" type of things -- a question of perception.

However, I'm not sure one could come to that understanding by reading the writings of our founding fathers.

Also, it fails logically. Allow me to explain...

1) The Constitution (at least the portions that deal with Individual Rights, namely the first 10 Amendments) all address rights INHERENT to people as human beings. Which means that you have those rights regardless of whether or not you live in a society that does or does not have a Gov't -- the fact that a Gov't may or may not recognize those Rights is irrelevant. If we agree on this point, we can continue...

2) The Constitution was created based on a recognition of an individual's inherent Rights and built all of it's principles based on those Rights. It was not the Constitution that granted us those Rights, and the Constitution was not created PRIOR TO us having those Rights -- man has always had those Rights, and always will; the Constitution was merely the first government document to fully recognize those Rights. If we agree on this point, we can continue...

3) The Supreme Court did not exist prior to the Constitution -- it was the Constitution which created the Supreme Court. If we agree on this point, we can continue...

4) To say, then, that the U.S. Constitution only says what it does by virtue of the Supreme Court is double-speak. B/C by that definition, the Supreme Court would have absolutely no authority -- after all, if the Supreme Court are the only ones to weigh in on the issue of what the Constitution says, then how would the Court have rec'd it's authority in the first place (prior to it's creation)??? The Supreme Court cannot exist without relying on the authority of the Constitution -- which document was not created to give man his Rights but only to formally recognize those Rights. Just as the authority of the Court is derived from the Constitution, the authority of the Constitution is derived from the collective Rights of every individual person. If we agree on that point, let's keep going...

5) Although we have all "agreed" to rely on the Supreme Court's decisions regarding Constitutionality (in order to maintain a civilized and orderly society), the Supreme Court does not maintain exclusive power to decide whether something is Unconstitutional or not -- what they do, in fact, is give us their EXPERT OPINION. If enough of us disagree, we vote in a Pres. who will shift the balance of power of the court (or, in extreme measure, the Justices can be removed and replaced) as soon as an opening occurs -- and thus, provide opportunity for new opinions, and thus new interpretations of law. But the court is merely an EXPERT WITNESS, not an end-all-be-all-final-say of what is Constitutional or what isn't.

You may still disagree.
Consider one scenario first.

A bit over 200 years ago pen was put to ink and our fathers declared that something was SELF-EVIDENT; that something was that all men were created with certain rights and were equals. Sadly, our nation and our highest of courts failed to recognize and accept that those words meant "ALL OF HUMANKIND" not simply all white people, or all males, etc. We didn't fully recognize that fact until the Civil War, and later the Civil & Women's Rights movements. Now, for the most part, all people in this country and truly free and equal (I said, for the most part).

But what if we suddenly got a series of Supreme Court Justices on the bench who suddenly decided that those movements were wrong and that women, for example, were not in fact to be included in the collective definition of "free people"??? What if they said that to afford women equal rights and freedoms along with men was an Unconstitutional principle??? Would that suddenly actually render the concept Unconstitutional??? Of course not.

Or, are you saying that it would?
Or did I totally mis-read your post? (Please forgive me if I did!) :)
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
I was merely pointing out that "constitutionality" can be subjective, often very subjective (recent interpretations of the "Commerce Clause" come readily to mind), and disagreements in lower courts often end up in the Supreme Court for their opinion (eventually - I think Miller (1939) was the last Second Amendment case the USSC heard). I happen to think that Lautenberg is unconstitutional even though the courts, in part (Emerson), disagree with me.

To change the Court is a long-term proposition that not only requires that a sympathetic President be elected but that members of the Court be committed enough to retire or die in a timely fashion, that the Senate confirms the nominee and lastly, that the new Justice in fact votes as we expect him to. If all the above does manage to come together, the USSC seems to be a bit reluctant to totally discard previous decisions in one fell swoop; change seems to mostly be the result of gradual chipping away at a decision over decades.

In the scenario you included at the end of your post, I'm not sure it's valid, given the ratification of the 14th and 19th Amendments (I may be wrong but I doubt that the SC has the authority to declare an Amendment invalid; chip away at it, yes, but not summary negation).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Don,

I agree with your response to my questions/scenario. I def. agree that a lot has to come into play for the court to change, and even then it's very slow (as I think it should be -- this country is all about liberal progress which I think that that dynamic factor is responsible for so much of our success, but when it comes to the court I do think they serve us well be being usually slow and traditional).

My point was that they only give us their expert opinion, but aren't necessarily right (though probably right most of the time) -- I understand and agree with your position, I just thought your original phrasing of it was misleading/not wholly accurate ( I think a more accurate statement could have been achieved by merely substituting the word "practice" for "reality").

I liked your correction to my scenario -- I think you are correct when you stated that you don't think the court can summarily disregard an amendment, that they can "only chip away at it over time". That being said, you pointed out very validly that my scenario was mis-placed.

[EDIT]: None of this should be construed, however, to indicate that I have changed my position on the concept of a Fed. Registry of firearms. While I don't think such a registry actually violates my 2A rights, I feel it sufficiently crosses the line for me to consider it, personally, as an outright attack on my rights. To me it seems a similar thing as if a new law were placed on the books stating that any time I choose to make a public statement contrary to current Administration policy I must first register myself and what I am going to say with the federal gov't so they will know who the dissenters are. Sure, no ACTUAL violation of my 1A rights would have occurred since I am still allowed to say whatever I want -- BUT the sheer intimidation and hassle factor of such a measure IN PRACTICE would absolutely violate and limit my 1A rights. I view the idea of a fed. registration of firearms as no different.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
I can agree with much of what Bane has to say in his argument/position. I must also point out that the legislative and executive branches of government may also rule against wrong, or inappropriate decisions handed out by the Supreme Court. This was set up so that no one ruling body of government could control all, or be all when it comes to decisions concerning the nation. This is called, "Checks and Balances."

When the constitution was written it took into account the prevalent theories, practices, laws and positions on all issues, or at least those considered most important for our new free Republic.

What is ignored often by Critics, Skeptics, Womens Libbers, and historians, or the ignorant, is the age when the constitution was laid. In that age women had no rights, a disobedient wife could even legally be sold for her insolence. ******* were considered property and even if free allowed only so much freedom as laws in the separate states considered them uneducated, enough so that any free ***** who was allowed to vote, and was a property owner (which often meant that they themselves were slave holders) above the age of 21 and married, had a vote which counted as only 1/2 compared to the average citizen. They were considered limited citizens.

Land owners and married men were allowed to vote, and indeed it was considered a responsibility for them to do so in order to assist the lesser masses. Women were not allowed a vote, it was not there place.

Therefore when the constitution was laid down, yes these things were considered. It would probably have been the furthest thing from their (our founding Fathers) minds to consider women, blacks, single men or non-land or property owners to be eligible or capable of holding public office, or of voting as that was not something they were eligible for.

This would mean then, that when the constitution was set down that not all men were created equal, but to the eyes of the law, or of those able to run for office, or to be elected, or to be able to vote, they were created equal. Equal in their responsibility to their fellow man. Equal in the eyes of the law, and equal amongst their peers to be able to represent the lesser masses, or common citizens as they strove to create the great nation we have become.

This doe not mean I stand for these things, I just understand them better than most due to the nature of my studies over the years. What the Founding Fathers did was a great thing. A thing which nations around the globe have tried to emulate for over 230 years, with little success. There is no doubt in my mind that what they did was inspired, that their actions were led by God, and that they created the greatest nation this earth has in these times.

It is because of these things that we not only owe our Founding Fathers our lives and a huge debt of gratitude, but also a responsibility to safeguard and protect what they sacrificed their all for (many did just that!). So let us all be ever vigilant, ever watchful, and do all we can within our power to protect our nation, our honest constitutional laws, our families and our God-given Rights.

:)
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top