Posted on 10/01/2006 2:17:32 PM PDT by Mini-14
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
"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 it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it."
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.
In Pennsylvania, the law prohibits carrying in a school 'except for lawful purposes'. Different jurisdictions interpret it in different ways. Some people have been prosecuted, but some DAs have said publicly that they will not prosecute someone with a permit if they are behaving properly. Most permits are issued for 'self defense' and since that is a 'lawful purpose' should exempt you from prosecution.
Pennsylvania is in the minority. I now know of THREE states that allow licensed individuals to carry in schools: Utah, Oregon, Pennsylvania. That leaves 47 states that do not.
The relevance of this is question is what? Surely you don't think one needs to be a lawyer to realize that knowledge of crime makes one an accessory after the fact if one does not make the authorities aware of the crime.
The relevance is that I've never seen such slavish submission to 'the law' except from lawyers.
Ah, so you're more comfortable with the liberal buffet style where you just pick and choose which laws you feel like obeying today? Nice.
See my post at #121.
I refuse to obey laws that are immoral. I won't obey laws that leave myself and my loved ones unprotected. I break lots of laws and plan to continue to do so for the rest of my days.
That said, I have never initiated force against anyone or harmed anyone in any way. That may make me an outlaw in your eyes, but our esteemed lawmakers steal (taxes and other takings) from the people and harm them regularly and in the name of doing good. Are you comfortable with that?
So, are you a lawyer or do you just ask how high when the law tells you to jump?
Good thing the gun didn't run off during a break or something and kill someone. /sarcasm
Now we have it. You're a criminal. There really isn't anything more that can be said between us, because I can't honestly expect a criminal, with the pathological disregard for the law that all criminals have to understand why one can't pick and choose which laws to obey.
If there were more responsible adults on school campus legally carrying concealed firearms, it would be a deterrent to mass murderes who target schools.
Your line of thinking is EXACTLY why at public school I will never identify not only do both administrators have firearms easily accessible, but so do several teachers (one of whom is married to a law enforcement officer).
Fortunately, not all people are like you who wish to add insult to injury by victimize victims yet again. I doubt you will find too many people on this forum who share your cowardice.
I have harmed no one in any way. I haveimposed no burden on any one. I have not been convicted of any crime. How am I a criminal?
If guns are banned, will you surrender yours? It would be the law, you know.
BTW, a simple yes or no would suffice. Are you a lawyer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.