Should we believe police who tell us gun laws don't infringe on Constitution?

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 17 September, 2010 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

"Gun reporting laws don't infringe on Constitution," Wilmington Department of Police Capt. Nancy S. Dietz assures us as her contribution to DelawareOnline's Constitution Day observance.

She tells us of the graduation ceremony for department recruits, "with the official recitation of the oath of office, which requires each new officer to swear to enforce all state and local laws and support the Constitution of the United States of America."

Oath Keepers all?

And then she tips her hand:

"Clearly, the principles enshrined in the Constitution have evolved, and the courts have provided changing interpretations of the law as society faces new challenges."

Ah, I see. A career "Only One" bureaucrat is using sleight of mind to stump for more "gun control"--and relying on those she addresses to not see through her artifice and know any better.

Here's where she's leading us:

"Despite opinions to the contrary, our Constitution is a living document that was intended to safeguard our rights. It embodies freedom, equality, justice, security and protection of our nation's core values. Enacting state gun laws that are reasonable and helpful to law enforcement will not diminish the principles of the Second Amendment and the obligations inferred by the Constitution and its founders."

The only thing contrary to her assertion are "opinions"? Capt. Nancy Dietz (along with Al Gore) said it, I believe it, that settles it?

Does she mean "inferred by" or "implied by"? If the former, she is claiming to know the minds of the Founders, and implies she is speaking for them.

And the...uh...infringements she's proposing don't diminish "shall not be infringed"? Could such an obvious contradiction really be proffered as the truth--at least honestly?

Just what this lady took an oath to is a mystery to me.

[muir_redwoods]

If the Constitution were meant to evolve with the whims of judges, why did the Founders waste so much ink decribing the amendment process?

[D Rider]

"Clearly, the principles enshrined in the Constitution have evolved, and the courts have provided changing interpretations of the law as society faces new challenges."

Capt. Nancy is Such a Dietz.

[achilles2000]

Police captain “Nancy” tells you the whole story.

Welfare in a uniform.

[muir_redwoods]

"I too have unsuccessfully searched for “the “Living Document” clause.”

I think it's right next the "Separation of Church and State" clause nearby the exception for Affirmative Action clause.

sarc/

[jmacusa]

It isn’t the job of the police to interpret the law.

[OneWingedShark]

"Clearly, the principles enshrined in the Constitution have evolved, and the courts have provided changing interpretations of the law as society faces new challenges."

And here I thought it was the Legislature's job to create or change the law; silly me!

[OneWingedShark]

LOL - A good post there; thanks.

[Georgia Girl 2]

According to my defense attorney cousin “The policeman is not always your friend”.

[William Tell]

Anti-gunners are faced with arguing that, despite the Heller and McDonald decisions, the 20,000 or so gun laws in the U.S. just coincidentally are not infringements of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

They must argue that their agony over the Heller and McDonald decisions was misplaced and unnecessary. Every gun law is completely consistent with the fundamental right now firmly established. Having argued previously that there is no right, they must explain the coincidence that the right has not been infringed in the 71 years since the almost universally "misinterpreted" Miller decision.

[CynicalBear]

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I don’t see any evolving in that constitutional language. No constitutional change in over 200 years. No law changes the constitution. Any law passed that is in conflict with the above statement in the constitution is UN Constitutional.

[CynicalBear]

>> We should ask the fine law enforcement officials in Las Vegas , the BATF at Waco and the FBI at Ruby Ridge. They can answer how important gun laws are and how their enforcement helps ro protect law abiding citizens.<<

Could you describe to me how either Waco or Ruby ridge threatened the citizenry of this country to the point that they need to be wiped out?

[OneWingedShark]

Use stronger language... any law or regulation contrary to the constitution is contra-constitutional.
{I think people have become a bit calloused to the word ‘unconstitutional.’}

[Dick Vomer]

sarcasm