The great gun control fizzle

Politico ^ | Thursday, April 4, 2013 | Rich Lowery

[upchuck]

U.S. Agrees To U.N. Global Gun Control

That headline, although technically correct, leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes, nobama said he'd be a traitor once more and sign the piece of sh1t.

Fortunately, it won't become law without the Senate's okay and, apparently, that ain't happening.

[Owl558]

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

I see, I see. Seems common-sensical. The Bill-of-Rights is the Bill-of Rights no matter where you are in the Union.

So then, how can States vote to nullify/not implement obamacare since Justice Roberts ruled the law is a constitutional tax? Aren’t the States obligated to provide equal protection of the laws?

Unfortunatly, you are correct, our government enforces what they like and ignores what they dont. Precious few of our politicians even give a crap about this Constitution stuff.

[Owl558]

“...Feudal society was just gangs of armed men holding strong points. Most realized they needed serfs to grow food for them and their horses...”

As feudalism evolved it became a very complicated patchwork of serfs, freed, and indentured farmers and tradesmen governed by guilds and the nobles. The nobles had their sphere, the clergy theirs, and people theirs. By the late medeival people generally guarded their ‘rights’ and privileges accumulated over generations. Very facinating.

Totalitarian anarchy = despotism to me. This is what tyranny looks like.

[Washi]

Boo-friggin'-hoo, Politico.

They are upset because the left's attempts to exploit the deaths of several school children didn't result in as big an infringement on liberty as they had hoped.

We here in Colorado and those in Connecticut just had a significant share of our freedoms "fizzled" away.

[jwalsh07]

Not fizzling in CT, the fascists have won the day and are dancing on the graves of children murdered by a nut doomed by psychotropic drugs.

[Washi]

Colorado...yeah, that bothers me.

Yeah, it bothers me too.

I'm worried that Obama's Chicago, progressive machine is now firmly entrenched in Colorado.

I don't know if we'll ever have a believable election outcome again.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Kalorado is Kalifornia TWO

[vette6387]

“It won’t matter unless the laws they passed are repealed”

That’s a possibility if the legislatures change hands, although I would not bet on either NT or CT. Being run by RATs is endemic in those states. The other possibility is that the SCOTUS will finally stop picking at the scab that is the 2A and make a definitive ruling. Since the 2A is quite specific, the states should be proscribed from many ANY gun law. The idea that you are at risk of arrest as you travel from state to state by virtue of the disconnect in the laws, is just nuts!

[Still Thinking]

The needle of public opinion is moving the wrong way.

Well, wrong way for tyrants. Right way for the people that matter.

[Still Thinking]

But the assault weapons ban has been deep-sixed by Democrats in the Senate. Same with any limit on the size of magazines. The argument now is all about increasing the reach of background checks...

...which is actually far MORE dangerous than bans on cosmetic features or mag capacity. Don't be bought off.

[Still Thinking]

Its now completely obvious, the goverment doesnt want citizens to be able to arm themselves against 'authority' thats quickly turning into tyranny. If all the facts are presented, its almost impossible to come to any other conclusion.

It's safer to start with that as your default premise and only become convinced their motives are benign when there's actual proof of it. We're the ones that get the benefit of the doubt, not them.

[supercat]

A real legal scholar can do better than I can. An example would be the 5th Amendment. No State can abridge, modify, or cancel the 5th Amendment rights of its citizens. The Supreme Courts of all States, and the Supreme Court of the United States are all in agreement on this. Equally, no State can abridge, modify, or cancel the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens. Yet, State Courts, and Federal judges get fuzzy logic here. There should be no misunderstanding.

I think the biggest problem is that courts fail to recognize two things:

1. In order to be legitimate, any government action must be performed by someone who making a good-faith effort to uphold the Constitution. The fact that an action is performed in bad faith is sufficient, in and of itself, to render the action illegitimate. For example, if a cop executing a search warrant accidentally destroys something which is valuable to the homeowner, that wouldn't render the search illegitimate, but if the purpose of the destruction was to deprive the homeowner of his rightful property, the "search" should be regarded as illegitimate (and the person conducting it should be regarded as a robber).
2. The question of whether people act in good faith is in many cases a question more of witness credibility than of law. As such, defendants have a right to have questions of good faith considered by a jury, and to have jurors informed that if they find someone to have acted in bad faith, they must regard that person's actions and evidence gathered thereby as having been illegitimate.

To be sure, the fact that an action is performed in good faith does not imply that it is legitimate, but the legitimacy of any action cannot be presumed without also presuming it to be in good faith, and the concept that any particular individual acts in good faith should be regarded as at most a rebutable presumption. Thus, the right to a jury trial implies a right to challenge before a jury the good faith of any government personnel involved in any aspect of a case. Government agents who act in good faith should have no trouble convincing jurors of that fact (most jurors will be predisposed to believe them). On the other hand, jurors may be more inclined than a judge to regard as illegitimate the actions of someone who tries to follow the letter of the law only to the extent that judges demand it, while deliberately acting contrary to its spirit.

Incidentally, with regard to questions of Congressional authority, a proper remedy would be to have jurors recognize that the boundaries of federal authority extend not only to what statutes Congress may legitimately pass, but the cases in which it may legitimately have them enforced. For example, if a statute claims authority under the "interstate commerce" clause, federal prosecutors should have to convince a jury that the particular actions of the defendant interfered with good-faith efforts on the part of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce without excessive intrusion on states' powers or individual rights.

With regard to the Second Amendment, there could be some legitimate gray areas (e.g. requiring that ammunition which is headstamped ".380 Auto" and tendered for commercial sale must, when fired in a certain barrel, produce pressures within a certain range). In evaluating the legitimacy of a regulation, the fundamental question should be whether those promoting it are endeavoring to increase or decrease the effectiveness of people's armament. Regulations which represent a good-faith effort to help people arm themselves more effectively (e.g. by making it easier to know what ammunition will work safely in their firearm) may be legitimate; those which represent a bad-faith effort to make arms less affordable are not.

[Still Thinking]

Incidentally, with regard to questions of Congressional authority, a proper remedy would be to have jurors recognize that the boundaries of federal authority extend not only to what statutes Congress may legitimately pass, but the cases in which it may legitimately have them enforced. For example, if a statute claims authority under the "interstate commerce" clause, federal prosecutors should have to convince a jury that the particular actions of the defendant interfered with good-faith efforts on the part of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce without excessive intrusion on states' powers or individual rights.

As a juror, I do understand that, and would apply that standard when relevant. Filburn would have had nothing to fear from me. Or Raich.

[Enterprise]

Thank you for that scholarly post. I read through it at least three times, and will probably read it three times more. It was THAT GOOD!