Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 6, 2018 23:22:24 GMT -5
Chapter 7.94 RCW EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACTThe court will, if it deems necessary (i.e. finds the person a threat) issue an order for a period of one year. That will either expire or be extended as the result of another hearing request by the petitioner. The respondent has the right every 12 months to request a hearing to prove he is not a threat. If he can do that, his gun(s) will be returned. O... kay. Is this a factor that decides whether confiscation is acceptable or not in your mind? Do you trust the police's judgment in this case? Would you trust it in any case? Do you draw a hard line anywhere?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 6, 2018 23:50:18 GMT -5
They put stock photos in to depict tyranny, not because they expect readers will believe a 20-man SWAT team is needed to confiscate a single, law abiding man's gun. It's rank editorialism, but it's not deceptive. If your beef is with people using shocking imagery to stir up people's emotions for political reasons, go after the activists lying in heaps in front of the White House, or feminists dressed up as giant vaginas, or the groups setting up billboards to troll Hollywood about sexual misconduct, or...The highlighted is current and real. There is nothing in the linked articles about Seattle which reads current and real.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 7, 2018 1:03:54 GMT -5
Chapter 7.94 RCW EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACTThe court will, if it deems necessary (i.e. finds the person a threat) issue an order for a period of one year. That will either expire or be extended as the result of another hearing request by the petitioner. The respondent has the right every 12 months to request a hearing to prove he is not a threat. If he can do that, his gun(s) will be returned. O... kay. Is this a factor that decides whether confiscation is acceptable or not in your mind? Do you trust the police's judgment in this case? Would you trust it in any case? Do you draw a hard line anywhere? What does the judgment of the police have to do with it? They do not create the order, they enforce it. The petition goes before a judge, who takes all available evidence into account in deciding whether to grant it. If so, the order is served on the respondent who can then request a hearing to prove otherwise. On what basis do you criticize the police here?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 7, 2018 9:06:38 GMT -5
The highlighted is current and real. There is nothing in the linked articles about Seattle which reads current and real. ..., which would matter if your criticism wasn't about the use of a stock photo to stir up emotions. I won't hang my hat on the story being accurate and complete. Whether it's real or not, I'm still interested in what members think (in the hypothetical, if you prefer).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 7, 2018 9:39:20 GMT -5
O... kay. Is this a factor that decides whether confiscation is acceptable or not in your mind? Do you trust the police's judgment in this case? Would you trust it in any case? Do you draw a hard line anywhere? What does the judgment of the police have to do with it? They do not create the order, they enforce it. The petition goes before a judge, who takes all available evidence into account in deciding whether to grant it. If so, the order is served on the respondent who can then request a hearing to prove otherwise. On what basis do you criticize the police here? Assuming the judge doesn't simply rubber-stamp a recommendation by police, replace "police" with "courts" and the questions stand. Here's what I'm trying to drill down to: the sine qua non of the Second Amendment is a defense against the tyranny of government. The judge is an agent of the government. Historically this isn't a problem since a judge's power is limited to punishing lawbreakers, with the law of the land spelled out in highly proscribed terms. In contrast, here we have a law that permits arms confiscation based on (but not limited to) a set of vague general criteria (including, ironically, "the respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms"). Whether or not the Seattle case is accurate, I see nothing in the law that precludes it from being so. A judge is within his discretion to interpret "staring at people while carrying a firearm" as "a pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent". It doesn't take a genius to realize arms confiscation based on vague, general criteria obviates the citizen's ability to bear arms in defense against the state, which is why champions of the Second Amendment are so concerned by this case. But what about you? Do you draw the line at any point? For example, if a judge determines frequent attendance at anti-government rallies (some featuring speakers advocating violent revolution) is reasonably "a pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent", would you implicitly trust the confiscation to be necessary and fair under these circumstances? If so, of what use is the Second Amendment?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 7, 2018 10:34:10 GMT -5
The highlighted is current and real. There is nothing in the linked articles about Seattle which reads current and real. ..., which would matter if your criticism wasn't about the use of a stock photo to stir up emotions. I won't hang my hat on the story being accurate and complete. Whether it's real or not, I'm still interested in what members think (in the hypothetical, if you prefer). I personally am waiting for the update about hundreds of U.S. government officials and others arrested with some of them being held at Gitmo and other dark places.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 7, 2018 13:12:31 GMT -5
What does the judgment of the police have to do with it? They do not create the order, they enforce it. The petition goes before a judge, who takes all available evidence into account in deciding whether to grant it. If so, the order is served on the respondent who can then request a hearing to prove otherwise. On what basis do you criticize the police here? Assuming the judge doesn't simply rubber-stamp a recommendation by police, replace "police" with "courts" and the questions stand. Here's what I'm trying to drill down to: the sine qua non of the Second Amendment is a defense against the tyranny of government. The judge is an agent of the government. Historically this isn't a problem since a judge's power is limited to punishing lawbreakers, with the law of the land spelled out in highly proscribed terms. In contrast, here we have a law that permits arms confiscation based on (but not limited to) a set of vague general criteria (including, ironically, "the respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms"). Whether or not the Seattle case is accurate, I see nothing in the law that precludes it from being so. A judge is within his discretion to interpret "staring at people while carrying a firearm" as "a pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent". It doesn't take a genius to realize arms confiscation based on vague, general criteria obviates the citizen's ability to bear arms in defense against the state, which is why champions of the Second Amendment are so concerned by this case. But what about you? Do you draw the line at any point? For example, if a judge determines frequent attendance at anti-government rallies (some featuring speakers advocating violent revolution) is reasonably "a pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent", would you implicitly trust the confiscation to be necessary and fair under these circumstances? If so, of what use is the Second Amendment? First, let's recognize that we have very differing views on the Second Amendment. Bearing in mind that the initial petition is unlikely to come from law enforcement anyway, but rather from private parties familiar with the immediate or ongoing threat, they still have to convince a judge that the threat is serious enough to warrant action. And even in that event, the respondent has his day in court to prove otherwise. I don't have a problem with it. All in all, though, the procedure sounds a bit cumbersome. For someone who chooses to open carry in public (and particularly those who do so to "make a statement"), they are almost certainly a greater threat than those who they claim they need to be protected from. I think I'd prefer that police save us all the time and trouble and just shoot the f***ers. None. It was put in place to ensure and protect the existence of state militias. It did not grant an individual right to own guns, and even the asinine Heller decision that basically reversed prior Court decisions did not hold that the "right" was unrestricted. If we can't interpret the Second Amendment properly it should be repealed.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 7, 2018 16:45:05 GMT -5
Assuming the judge doesn't simply rubber-stamp a recommendation by police, replace "police" with "courts" and the questions stand. Here's what I'm trying to drill down to: the sine qua non of the Second Amendment is a defense against the tyranny of government. The judge is an agent of the government. Historically this isn't a problem since a judge's power is limited to punishing lawbreakers, with the law of the land spelled out in highly proscribed terms. In contrast, here we have a law that permits arms confiscation based on (but not limited to) a set of vague general criteria (including, ironically, "the respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms"). Whether or not the Seattle case is accurate, I see nothing in the law that precludes it from being so. A judge is within his discretion to interpret "staring at people while carrying a firearm" as "a pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent". It doesn't take a genius to realize arms confiscation based on vague, general criteria obviates the citizen's ability to bear arms in defense against the state, which is why champions of the Second Amendment are so concerned by this case. But what about you? Do you draw the line at any point? For example, if a judge determines frequent attendance at anti-government rallies (some featuring speakers advocating violent revolution) is reasonably "a pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent", would you implicitly trust the confiscation to be necessary and fair under these circumstances? If so, of what use is the Second Amendment? First, let's recognize that we have very differing views on the Second Amendment. Bearing in mind that the initial petition is unlikely to come from law enforcement anyway, but rather from private parties familiar with the immediate or ongoing threat, they still have to convince a judge that the threat is serious enough to warrant action. And even in that event, the respondent has his day in court to prove otherwise. I don't have a problem with it. All in all, though, the procedure sounds a bit cumbersome. For someone who chooses to open carry in public (and particularly those who do so to "make a statement"), they are almost certainly a greater threat than those who they claim they need to be protected from. I think I'd prefer that police save us all the time and trouble and just shoot the f***ers. None. It was put in place to ensure and protect the existence of state militias. It did not grant an individual right to own guns, and even the asinine Heller decision that basically reversed prior Court decisions did not hold that the "right" was unrestricted. If we can't interpret the Second Amendment properly it should be repealed. State militias haven't existed for more than a century. So you're in the same boat as billis: repeal the Second Amendment. Fair enough. Thanks for your candor. I am hoping, however, that a few members who do support the Second Amendment in its individualist interpretation will comment on whether the Seattle case crosses a line for them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 7, 2018 17:08:10 GMT -5
First, let's recognize that we have very differing views on the Second Amendment. Bearing in mind that the initial petition is unlikely to come from law enforcement anyway, but rather from private parties familiar with the immediate or ongoing threat, they still have to convince a judge that the threat is serious enough to warrant action. And even in that event, the respondent has his day in court to prove otherwise. I don't have a problem with it. All in all, though, the procedure sounds a bit cumbersome. For someone who chooses to open carry in public (and particularly those who do so to "make a statement"), they are almost certainly a greater threat than those who they claim they need to be protected from. I think I'd prefer that police save us all the time and trouble and just shoot the f***ers. None. It was put in place to ensure and protect the existence of state militias. It did not grant an individual right to own guns, and even the asinine Heller decision that basically reversed prior Court decisions did not hold that the "right" was unrestricted. If we can't interpret the Second Amendment properly it should be repealed. State militias haven't existed for more than a century. So you're in the same boat as billis: repeal the Second Amendment. Fair enough. Thanks for your candor. I am hoping, however, that a few members who do support the Second Amendment in its individualist interpretation will comment on whether the Seattle case crosses a line for them. In a way, they do. The direct descendants of the state militias are the National Guard in each state. Their " History" description on their website starts: They are pretty much exactly the same as state militias in earlier times. They have their own lives and responsibilities, but remain available to respond when necessary. In addition, they also undergo regular training so that they are in fact "well-regulated." Anyone claiming a Second Amendment right to own a gun today should be able to answer the question, "Which unit are you with?"
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 7, 2018 17:20:38 GMT -5
State militias haven't existed for more than a century. So you're in the same boat as billis: repeal the Second Amendment. Fair enough. Thanks for your candor. I am hoping, however, that a few members who do support the Second Amendment in its individualist interpretation will comment on whether the Seattle case crosses a line for them. In a way, they do. The direct descendants of the state militias are the National Guard in each state. Their " History" description on their website starts: They are pretty much exactly the same as state militias in earlier times. They have their own lives and responsibilities, but remain available to respond when necessary. In addition, they also undergo regular training so that they are in fact "well-regulated." Anyone claiming a Second Amendment right to own a gun today should be able to answer the question, "Which unit are you with?" Isn't the National Guard under federal jurisdiction?
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 7, 2018 17:35:44 GMT -5
Texas Rangers and no I don't mean the baseball team.
The duties of the Texas Ranger Division consist of conducting criminal and special investigations; apprehending wanted felons; suppressing major disturbances; the protection of life and property; and rendering assistance to local law enforcement in suppressing crime and violence. The Texas Ranger Division is also responsible for the gathering and dissemination of criminal intelligence pertaining to all facets of organized crime. The Texas Ranger Division joins with all other enforcement agencies in the suppression of the same; under orders of the Director, suppress all criminal activity in any given area, when it is apparent that the local officials are unwilling or unable to maintain law and order; also upon the request or order of a judge of a court of record, Texas Rangers may serve as officers of the court and assist in the maintenance of decorum, the protection of life, and the preservation of property during any judicial proceeding; and provide protection for elected officials at public functions and at any other time or place when directed. The Texas Rangers, with the approval of the Director, may conduct investigations of any alleged misconduct on the part of other Department of Public Safety personnel.[55]
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 7, 2018 17:36:48 GMT -5
In a way, they do. The direct descendants of the state militias are the National Guard in each state. Their " History" description on their website starts: They are pretty much exactly the same as state militias in earlier times. They have their own lives and responsibilities, but remain available to respond when necessary. In addition, they also undergo regular training so that they are in fact "well-regulated." Anyone claiming a Second Amendment right to own a gun today should be able to answer the question, "Which unit are you with?" Isn't the National Guard under federal jurisdiction? Combination of state and federal, but my understanding is that they are primarily a state organization and at least most if not the vast majority of their duties and responses will be within the state. The president can call them for federal duty if deemed necessary. Someone with more extensive knowledge is invited to correct me.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 7, 2018 17:41:11 GMT -5
In a way, they do. The direct descendants of the state militias are the National Guard in each state. Their " History" description on their website starts: They are pretty much exactly the same as state militias in earlier times. They have their own lives and responsibilities, but remain available to respond when necessary. In addition, they also undergo regular training so that they are in fact "well-regulated." Anyone claiming a Second Amendment right to own a gun today should be able to answer the question, "Which unit are you with?" Isn't the National Guard under federal jurisdiction? Do I get your lunch money if I do your homework on this?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 7, 2018 20:13:21 GMT -5
Isn't the National Guard under federal jurisdiction? Do I get your lunch money if I do your homework on this? Absolutely. My specific question is: If a state government and the federal government are at odds on an issue, and the difference of opinion brings about two conflicting sets of orders for the National Guard, which of the two governments ultimately has the legal authority to command the National Guard? Whose order legally takes precedence? I ask because, as I opined earlier, if "the militia" in the form of the National Guard is legally obligated to follow the orders of the federal government in contravention of the orders of state governments, it's useless as defense against federal tyranny, and therefore wholly insufficient to serve as a state militia in the spirit of the Second Amendment. A closely related question is this: Suppose a federal government order is opposed by a state government and 85% of state citizens such that the state government actively frustrates attempts to enforce the order. If the federal government attempts to enforce the order by force, can a citizen of this state reasonably expect the National Guard to rise in opposition to federal force, in defense of the state government and will of the citizenry? Again, if the answer is "no" or even "it depends", the National Guard is (at best) useless in fulfilling the function of the militia presupposed by the Second Amendment.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 7, 2018 21:23:43 GMT -5
Do I get your lunch money if I do your homework on this? Absolutely. My specific question is: If a state government and the federal government are at odds on an issue, and the difference of opinion brings about two conflicting sets of orders for the National Guard, which of the two governments ultimately has the legal authority to command the National Guard? Whose order legally takes precedence? I ask because, as I opined earlier, if "the militia" in the form of the National Guard is legally obligated to follow the orders of the federal government in contravention of the orders of state governments, it's useless as defense against federal tyranny, and therefore wholly insufficient to serve as a state militia in the spirit of the Second Amendment. A closely related question is this: Suppose a federal government order is opposed by a state government and 85% of state citizens such that the state government actively frustrates attempts to enforce the order. If the federal government attempts to enforce the order by force, can a citizen of this state reasonably expect the National Guard to rise in opposition to federal force, in defense of the state government and will of the citizenry? Again, if the answer is "no" or even "it depends", the National Guard is (at best) useless in fulfilling the function of the militia presupposed by the Second Amendment. Code 10 §252.1 Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section252-1&num=0&edition=prelim
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 8, 2018 9:24:44 GMT -5
Absolutely. My specific question is: If a state government and the federal government are at odds on an issue, and the difference of opinion brings about two conflicting sets of orders for the National Guard, which of the two governments ultimately has the legal authority to command the National Guard? Whose order legally takes precedence? I ask because, as I opined earlier, if "the militia" in the form of the National Guard is legally obligated to follow the orders of the federal government in contravention of the orders of state governments, it's useless as defense against federal tyranny, and therefore wholly insufficient to serve as a state militia in the spirit of the Second Amendment. A closely related question is this: Suppose a federal government order is opposed by a state government and 85% of state citizens such that the state government actively frustrates attempts to enforce the order. If the federal government attempts to enforce the order by force, can a citizen of this state reasonably expect the National Guard to rise in opposition to federal force, in defense of the state government and will of the citizenry? Again, if the answer is "no" or even "it depends", the National Guard is (at best) useless in fulfilling the function of the militia presupposed by the Second Amendment. Code 10 §252.1 Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section252-1&num=0&edition=prelim Thank you. tallguy: In light of Exhibit A presented by the bailiff... I mean billis... I trust you'll understand if I now affirm the National Guard doesn't serve the function of a "well-regulated militia" envisioned by the Second Amendment. It quite evidently isn't a check on federal power. You might argue, "This still doesn't mean the framers intended the 2A to be defense of the individual right to bear arms," and you'd be right (at least in my opinion). However, if the institution the amendment was intended to protect, i.e. a militia not beholden to the federal government, no longer exists, one can reasonably deem the individual right to bear arms a counterbalance to this deficit. I don't know what rationale the majority opinion in the Heller case rested on, but if it was handed down at a time when the federal government could appropriate state militias as in Code 10 §252.1 of the Obscure Military Laws Procured by Billis Act, perhaps the need for a replacement was weighing heavily on the minds of the judges.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 8, 2018 9:44:01 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 8, 2018 10:09:35 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 8, 2018 14:19:03 GMT -5
Code 10 §252.1 Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section252-1&num=0&edition=prelim Thank you. tallguy : In light of Exhibit A presented by the bailiff... I mean billis... I trust you'll understand if I now affirm the National Guard doesn't serve the function of a "well-regulated militia" envisioned by the Second Amendment. It quite evidently isn't a check on federal power. You might argue, "This still doesn't mean the framers intended the 2A to be defense of the individual right to bear arms," and you'd be right (at least in my opinion). However, if the institution the amendment was intended to protect, i.e. a militia not beholden to the federal government, no longer exists, one can reasonably deem the individual right to bear arms a counterbalance to this deficit. I don't know what rationale the majority opinion in the Heller case rested on, but if it was handed down at a time when the federal government could appropriate state militias as in Code 10 §252.1 of the Obscure Military Laws Procured by Billis Act, perhaps the need for a replacement was weighing heavily on the minds of the judges. Here's the problem though. The U.S. military is forbidden from domestic law enforcement. We all know that. Governors of individual states can call up their state's National Guard for such a purpose. The federal government cannot. The only exception is to put down a rebellion. That necessarily requires the citizens to act against the government first. It cannot be used preemptively to act against citizens. if you ever do try to wade through Scalia's opinion in Heller, and I'm not sure why you would, I suggest giving the Stevens dissent a read. I am far, FAR more persuaded by that than Scalia's bald attempt to create law. One cannot start with a "strong presumption" of what you want the answer to be and then twist facts and evidence to fit that result. Scalia's decision was ideologically-derived, not constitutionally-derived.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 8, 2018 19:54:27 GMT -5
if you ever do try to wade through Scalia's opinion in Heller, and I'm not sure why you would, I suggest giving the Stevens dissent a read. I am far, FAR more persuaded by that than Scalia's bald attempt to create law. One cannot start with a "strong presumption" of what you want the answer to be and then twist facts and evidence to fit that result. Scalia's decision was ideologically-derived, not constitutionally-derived. From what I skimmed, it seemed to be parsing of the legalese in the document, obsessing over the needle-point-precise meaning of words. I observed the same thing in the court decision on John Edwards' paying his mistresses. How is a state's actively frustrating the federal government's attempt to enforce a law not rebellion?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 8, 2018 21:39:08 GMT -5
... Suppose a federal government order is opposed by a state government and 85% of state citizens such that the state government actively frustrates attempts to enforce the order. ... One factor is that members of the Guard are state citizens.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 8, 2018 22:20:40 GMT -5
if you ever do try to wade through Scalia's opinion in Heller, and I'm not sure why you would, I suggest giving the Stevens dissent a read. I am far, FAR more persuaded by that than Scalia's bald attempt to create law. One cannot start with a "strong presumption" of what you want the answer to be and then twist facts and evidence to fit that result. Scalia's decision was ideologically-derived, not constitutionally-derived. From what I skimmed, it seemed to be parsing of the legalese in the document, obsessing over the needle-point-precise meaning of words. I observed the same thing in the court decision on John Edwards' paying his mistresses. How is a state's actively frustrating the federal government's attempt to enforce a law not rebellion? 1. Scalia or Stevens? The beginning of Scalia's reasoning was, "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." He then twists all to justify that beginning. Stevens dissent refutes Scalia, so necessarily also concentrates on language. Stevens has the far more reasonable interpretation of history and background justifying his interpretation of that language. 2. Is that a general question or does it refer to a specific issue? The immediate comparison that comes to mind is "sanctuary cities" and immigration law. While I agree that those jurisdictions are frustrating the federal government, it is in no way a rebellion. First, the local jurisdictions have no real duty to aid the federal agencies but in fact have compelling reasons not to so act. They are not conscripts of the Federal government and they have their own realities to deal with. They are also not preventing federal authorities from enforcing federal law. They are only saying that they will not devote their own resources to it. Not rebellion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 9, 2018 7:14:41 GMT -5
1. Scalia or Stevens? The beginning of Scalia's reasoning was, "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." He then twists all to justify that beginning. Stevens dissent refutes Scalia, so necessarily also concentrates on language. Stevens has the far more reasonable interpretation of history and background justifying his interpretation of that language. Again, I'm not going to shed a tear if Stevens' interpretation renders the amendment moot, which I'm becoming increasingly convinced is the case as this discussion progresses. 2. Is that a general question or does it refer to a specific issue? The immediate comparison that comes to mind is "sanctuary cities" and immigration law. While I agree that those jurisdictions are frustrating the federal government, it is in no way a rebellion. First, the local jurisdictions have no real duty to aid the federal agencies but in fact have compelling reasons not to so act. They are not conscripts of the Federal government and they have their own realities to deal with. They are also not preventing federal authorities from enforcing federal law. They are only saying that they will not devote their own resources to it. Not rebellion. When I say "frustrating", I mean "actively opposing", not simply sitting on their hands. Suppose CA unilaterally declares amnesty for all illegal aliens in the state, promising them citizenship, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is utterly in contravention of federal law. The federal government decides to send in an army of loyal agents, judges, etc. to effectively purge the existing immigration bureaucracy in the state, and the CA government responds by actively defending their bureaucrats, even to the point of violence. As I see it, this is now clearly rebellion. Imagine you're a Californian and, like 85%+ of your fellow Californians, dearly wanted the amnesty granted--it's non-negotiable. Would you implicitly trust the National Guard to fight on your side and effectively repel the federal government, or would you also want an armed citizenry? I can tell you my perspective: no armed citizenry, no amnesty. It's as simple as that.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 9, 2018 9:53:43 GMT -5
... I can tell you my perspective: no armed citizenry, no amnesty. It's as simple as that. We barely get 50% of eligible voters to turn out every four years and not even close to half in other elections. The idea that our citizen will become engaged in armed resistance is highly questionable. Unless, , it is to take over an empty building in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Mar 9, 2018 13:36:17 GMT -5
Those are cute, about the same power as a BB Gun. They look just like those old cigarette lighters of the 1940s & '50s.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 9, 2018 14:05:26 GMT -5
Thank you. tallguy : In light of Exhibit A presented by the bailiff... I mean billis... I trust you'll understand if I now affirm the National Guard doesn't serve the function of a "well-regulated militia" envisioned by the Second Amendment. It quite evidently isn't a check on federal power. You might argue, "This still doesn't mean the framers intended the 2A to be defense of the individual right to bear arms," and you'd be right (at least in my opinion). However, if the institution the amendment was intended to protect, i.e. a militia not beholden to the federal government, no longer exists, one can reasonably deem the individual right to bear arms a counterbalance to this deficit. I don't know what rationale the majority opinion in the Heller case rested on, but if it was handed down at a time when the federal government could appropriate state militias as in Code 10 §252.1 of the Obscure Military Laws Procured by Billis Act, perhaps the need for a replacement was weighing heavily on the minds of the judges. Here's the problem though. The U.S. military is forbidden from domestic law enforcement. We all know that. Governors of individual states can call up their state's National Guard for such a purpose. The federal government cannot. The only exception is to put down a rebellion. That necessarily requires the citizens to act against the government first. It cannot be used preemptively to act against citizens. if you ever do try to wade through Scalia's opinion in Heller, and I'm not sure why you would, I suggest giving the Stevens dissent a read. I am far, FAR more persuaded by that than Scalia's bald attempt to create law. One cannot start with a "strong presumption" of what you want the answer to be and then twist facts and evidence to fit that result. Scalia's decision was ideologically-derived, not constitutionally-derived. I've always wondered who would stop the military from doing domestic law enforcement, or any other kind if action within the interior. If a POTUS who doesn't necessarily care about laws he thinks are stupid commanded the military to start using force in California for whatever purpose, we could take it to court, but that will take a few years, and everyone could be dead by then. Those people who own some guns could run out there and take on the world's most powerful military, and that would likely not be successful. Our society is very delicate and we don't notice because more often than not, we follows the rules that we have made for ourselves.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 9, 2018 14:20:21 GMT -5
Here's the problem though. The U.S. military is forbidden from domestic law enforcement. We all know that. Governors of individual states can call up their state's National Guard for such a purpose. The federal government cannot. The only exception is to put down a rebellion. That necessarily requires the citizens to act against the government first. It cannot be used preemptively to act against citizens. if you ever do try to wade through Scalia's opinion in Heller, and I'm not sure why you would, I suggest giving the Stevens dissent a read. I am far, FAR more persuaded by that than Scalia's bald attempt to create law. One cannot start with a "strong presumption" of what you want the answer to be and then twist facts and evidence to fit that result. Scalia's decision was ideologically-derived, not constitutionally-derived. I've always wondered who would stop the military from doing domestic law enforcement, or any other kind if action within the interior. If a POTUS who doesn't necessarily care about laws he thinks are stupid commanded the military to start using force in California for whatever purpose, we could take it to court, but that will take a few years, and everyone could be dead by then. Those people who own some guns could run out there and take on the world's most powerful military, and that would likely not be successful. Our society is very delicate and we don't notice because more often than not, we follows the rules that we have made for ourselves. My assumption would be that the overwhelming majority of our servicemen know very well what their duties and responsibilities are and would refuse such an order. The military oath pledges allegiance to the Constitution. The pledge to obey the orders of the President of the United States and all superior officers is dependent on those orders being lawful. Servicemen can in fact be prosecuted for following an illegal order. There is ZERO personal loyalty to the president no matter who it is. Loyalty is to the office, and even that is subordinate to their loyalty to the Constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 5:24:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 14:55:59 GMT -5
Quote; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 5:24:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 15:07:20 GMT -5
It's the Roe vs Wade of gun rights decisions.
|
|