Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should we believe police who tell us gun laws don't infringe on Constitution?
Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 17 September, 2010 | David Codrea

Posted on 09/18/2010 6:34:57 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Delaware
KEYWORDS: banglist; codrea; constitution; de; examiner; police
Obviously, the oath to uphold the Constitution means nothing to this policed captain. She should be removed from office.
1 posted on 09/18/2010 6:35:01 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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

she is full of it


2 posted on 09/18/2010 6:39:25 AM PDT by SF_Redux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

do not believe the police
ever


3 posted on 09/18/2010 6:39:54 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Gun reporting laws don't infringe on Constitution," Wilmington Department of Police Capt. Nancy S. Dietz assures us ...

This woman must hail from the Gestapo (yes, I went there). Someone who thinks like this should not be in any position of authority over anyone.

I am sure that if laws were enacted that would allow for us to own a small number of slaves, this person would have no problem with that either.

4 posted on 09/18/2010 6:43:56 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"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 it's ALWAYS the 2nd Amendment that has to evolve backwards while everything else evolves "progressively" to give the Statists more power and control, erasing more and more individual freedoms.

5 posted on 09/18/2010 6:48:59 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
What part of this does she think need interpreted?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

6 posted on 09/18/2010 6:49:22 AM PDT by True Grit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

You know, there are four copies of the Constitution within arms reach, and not one of them contains the “Living Document” clause.


7 posted on 09/18/2010 6:50:38 AM PDT by Darth Reardon (I've gotta get a pair of cat handcuffs and I gotta get 'em right away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

First, we would never have heard from this pimple on the butt of government were it not for O’Donnell’s win in Delaware. Second, based on her speech the Peter Principal is alive and well. She has been promoted to a position well above her level of competence and also one in which her damage potential is minimized.
Finally, as she spouts this drivel, she attempts to identify herself as the true arbiter of the Constitution and the final interpreter of the decisions of the Court. That attitude is exactly what is wrong with policing today.

When the police recognize that the job of the police is not to impose the will of their political masters, but to introduce the ethically challenged to the Criminal Justice System. We will live in a safer nation.


8 posted on 09/18/2010 6:51:14 AM PDT by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“”Clearly, the principles enshrined in the Constitution have evolved...

The correct word is devolved.


9 posted on 09/18/2010 6:51:22 AM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Clearly, the principles enshrined in the Constitution have evolved

The Constitution is a contract. The terms of the Constitutional Contract dictate what the govt can and cannot do and what powers the People have ceded to it.

Contracts do not "evolve." They are constant.

10 posted on 09/18/2010 6:54:10 AM PDT by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality: Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yes, Capt. Nancy Dietz should be fired! The Constitution is the highest law of the land, all other laws written by man are secondary, and the Constitution should be taken literally, it says what it means and means what it says!


11 posted on 09/18/2010 6:56:45 AM PDT by 2001convSVT ("Repeal ObamaCare")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We are approaching, and in some cases already past, the point where those who are supposed to protect and defend us are as much a threat to us as those we supposedly need protection and defending from. Sadly, it’s like so many situations these days, the minority of bad actors in a group are not sufficiently controlled by the good guys in the group and before long the whole group becomes guilty by association. At which point the good guys get mad because they are being bunched with the bad guys and their attitude toward those who look to them for protection becomes an impediment to both groups. Meanwhile the original group of criminals continue to thrive.

It seems to be mostly the groups of “professionals” like lawyers, teachers, doctors and so on. It works, for a bit. But then because they are investigating their own it eventually begins to break down. And any attempt by those on the outside to ask for a fix is handled by the professional association just hunkering down.


12 posted on 09/18/2010 6:59:16 AM PDT by jwparkerjr (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF_Redux

Clearly?

It’s as clear as her murky, muddy rationalizations.

I wager she does not even consider herself to be a “Progressive”, a liberal or even a little bit of a leftist.


13 posted on 09/18/2010 7:02:16 AM PDT by Iron Munro (I prayed: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it - He sent the Obamas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The police work for the local administration. They can be fired if they say something truthful. Did you think they swore to uphold the law?

They do what the administration tells them to do. They like to make arrests, and handcuff citizens, and haul them into custody. Lotta fun. Feeling of power. Doesn’t matter to them if they are catching criminals or just people who the administration wants to harass. Fun either way.


14 posted on 09/18/2010 7:02:43 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Annoying liberals is my goal. I will not be silenced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


15 posted on 09/18/2010 7:15:19 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (Our President-A modest man, who has much to be modest about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
I am sure that if laws were enacted that would allow for us to own a small number of slaves, this person would have no problem with that either.

From a purely theoretical stand point this would bring up the question of slave registration which would be for the well being and safety of the general population. You know the Welfare Clause. Some of the potential benefits of registration would be the return of stolen slaves to their legitimate owners. The government could also knows precisely how many there really are or who has them. There could also be a requirement for slave owners to demonstrate that they can safely store and handle their slaves.

Some simple questions regarding slave registration.

Why are salve licensing and registration so important? Under our current system, it is impossible to keep legally sold slaves out of the criminal and youth market. The only effective way to do that is by licensing slave purchasers and registering slaves when they are sold or transferred.

Why is it important to require slave purchasers to first obtain a slave license?

Licensing would improve the effectiveness of background checks by giving law enforcement adequate time to complete the check, and would provide better identification of the slave purchaser at the point of purchase.

Why is slave registration and licensing so important to public safety? Registration provides a mechanism for stopping the flow of slaves from the legal market (licensed dealers) to the criminal market. We need to register slaves when they are first sold so they can never be bought "legally" in "straw purchases" and immediately sold illegally into the youth or criminal markets. Registration prevents illegal transfers by making the registered owner responsible for what happens to his or her slave, and makes owners periodically take responsibility for their slaves by renewing their registrations.

Will licensing and registration make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain slaves?

No. Once a person obtains a license (which theoretically would require fingerprints, a photograph and a thorough background check) and demonstrates knowledge of the laws governing the use, possession, storage, and transfer of slaves and a basic understanding of slave safety and minimal competence in handling slaves, purchasing a slave will simply require a background check. While obtaining the initial license will require some paperwork and proof of appropriate training, it will be no harder than obtaining a drivers license. We license drivers and register cars, why not slave owners and slaves?

In practice, how would licensing and registration keep slaves out of the wrong hands?

Under a well-designed system, all slaves must be registered to a licensed purchaser when first sold (and used slaves must be transferred through a licensed dealer and registered in the same manner.) Regular renewal is required. If a slave is sold, it must be immediately reregistered to the new owner. Registered slaves which fall into the wrong hands can immediately be traced back to the last registered owner, who will face serious criminal charges unless they are able to show they properly transferred the slave in the first place.

16 posted on 09/18/2010 7:23:53 AM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If police continue this line of thinking I’m afraid that they are going to find out that life really sucks when they can’t get any assistance from society.

POLICEPAY.NET: Sworn Police Officers Per 1000 Citizens
Sep 23, 2008 ... All of the research that we have done in the past has shown that the national average is about 2 sworn police officers per 1000 citizens. ...
policepay.blogspot.com/.../sworn-police-officers-per-1000-citizens.html


17 posted on 09/18/2010 7:23:53 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Liberal White Female - the Death of Society


18 posted on 09/18/2010 7:24:39 AM PDT by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon

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


19 posted on 09/18/2010 7:27:24 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg
When the police recognize that the job of the police is not to impose the will of their political masters, but to introduce the ethically challenged to the Criminal Justice System. We will live in a safer nation.

The police were hired to impose the will of their political masters including revenue enhancement. A safer nation is not in their interest, job security wise.

20 posted on 09/18/2010 7:30:07 AM PDT by magslinger ('This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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


21 posted on 09/18/2010 7:36:38 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"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.

22 posted on 09/18/2010 7:40:04 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Police captain “Nancy” tells you the whole story.

Welfare in a uniform.


23 posted on 09/18/2010 7:41:19 AM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
"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/

24 posted on 09/18/2010 7:43:23 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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


25 posted on 09/18/2010 7:47:23 AM PDT by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"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!

26 posted on 09/18/2010 8:28:22 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox

LOL - A good post there; thanks.


27 posted on 09/18/2010 8:43:37 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

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


28 posted on 09/18/2010 9:45:49 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
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.

29 posted on 09/18/2010 9:50:28 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“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.


30 posted on 09/18/2010 11:14:45 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Vomer

>> 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?


31 posted on 09/18/2010 11:18:09 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

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.’}


32 posted on 09/18/2010 3:21:30 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

sarcasm


33 posted on 09/18/2010 8:14:17 PM PDT by Dick Vomer (Our President-A modest man, who has much to be modest about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson