Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JSF01

What's this?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, GRIZ said:

That is a fallacy in our system but can you think of a better one?

 

I can think of some improvements to make things better not that it will ever happen. Things like make it so politicians are personally held responsible if they pass any legislation that is found unconstitutional, and all laws are to be interpreted in the spirit that they were intended and any issues are to be interpreted in the way which gives the government the least amount of power over the individual.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can think of some improvements to make things better not that it will ever happen. Things like make it so politicians are personally held responsible if they pass any legislation that is found unconstitutional, and all laws are to be interpreted in the spirit that they were intended and any issues are to be interpreted in the way which gives the government the least amount of power over the individual.  


You mean follow the Constitution?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 


You mean follow the Constitution?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Pretty much, the trick is how do you ensure they follow the intent and not just what they can get away with through loop holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JSF01 said:

I can think of some improvements to make things better not that it will ever happen. Things like make it so politicians are personally held responsible if they pass any legislation that is found unconstitutional, and all laws are to be interpreted in the spirit that they were intended and any issues are to be interpreted in the way which gives the government the least amount of power over the individual.  

All officials in all branches enjoy a certain degree of immunity for official actions.  Who would take any of those jobs if this weren't the case.

Lets take a real life case for example.  Ernesto Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old.  His conviction was overturned by SCOTUS. Going by your idea of everyone being held personally responsible the cops, the prosecutor,  the judge and jury that convicted him, the state appellate court that upheld his conviction, the state supreme court, and the federal appellate court should all be held personally responsible.  Where would you get anyone to take these jobs if they all were to be held personally responsible?

Legislators are the same way.  A law gets reviewed before it is voted on.  If it passes the legislature, signed by the chief executive, it can't be found unconstitutional until someone brings it to a court's attention.  That may be years after it was signed into law.  You want to hold everyone personally responsible.  Who would want to be a legislator or chief executive.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

All officials in all branches enjoy a certain degree of immunity for official actions.  Who would take any of those jobs if this weren't the case.

Lets take a real life case for example.  Ernesto Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old.  His conviction was overturned by SCOTUS. Going by your idea of everyone being held personally responsible the cops, the prosecutor,  the judge and jury that convicted him, the state appellate court that upheld his conviction, the state supreme court, and the federal appellate court should all be held personally responsible.  Where would you get anyone to take these jobs if they all were to be held personally responsible?

Legislators are the same way.  A law gets reviewed before it is voted on.  If it passes the legislature, signed by the chief executive, it can't be found unconstitutional until someone brings it to a court's attention.  That may be years after it was signed into law.  You want to hold everyone personally responsible.  Who would want to be a legislator or chief executive.

 

 

 

 

There will always be people that would want that power. How is it really any different then say owning firearms in NJ? Look at the assault weapons ban list, besides the M1 Carbine there are a number of firearms which have the qualifier "type" after the name which people have variations of. The AG could tomorrow just declare them all illegal and immediately start arresting people and you'd just be out of luck. Despite that plenty of people do own those variations of firearms. 

 

Same thing applies to political positions even if there was personal risk. It would however make politicians extremely cautious when passing new laws, and encouraging them to keep the laws they do pass as narrow as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JSF01 said:

There will always be people that would want that power. How is it really any different then say owning firearms in NJ? Look at the assault weapons ban list, besides the M1 Carbine there are a number of firearms which have the qualifier "type" after the name which people have variations of. The AG could tomorrow just declare them all illegal and immediately start arresting people and you'd just be out of luck. Despite that plenty of people do own those variations of firearms. 

 

Same thing applies to political positions even if there was personal risk. It would however make politicians extremely cautious when passing new laws, and encouraging them to keep the laws they do pass as narrow as possible.

So you're saying all those executive, legislative, and judicial jobs are for someone else not me.  Hold them personally responsible but its not going to be me?  As i said before a law may be in effect for years before it gets in front of a court and is ruled unconstitutional. How are legislators supposed to predict what the court will find after they pass a bill?  How is the chief executive supposed to know?  Do you have a crystal ball that will tell them?   If it were your 18 year old daughter that was kidnapped and raped would you be saying "Good for Mr. Miranda" when his conviction was overturned?  It is not the executive or legislative branches responsibility to determine if a law is constitutional. Its the judicial branch that does that.  Thats in the COTUS.   That's following the COTUS.

Don't you think if good argument could be made against the NJ AWB in the nearly 30 years it's been in effect someone might have taken it to SCOTUS already?

There is 10A which reserves any powers not given in t b e COTUS to the states. 50 states have their own interpretation of what the right to keep and bear arms means.  That's in the COTUS.

Your idea of "personal responsibility" is very unrealistic.

You talked of a new "amendment".  You obviously have no idea what it takes to amend the COTUS.  The founders made it that way so it couldn't easily be changed.  

Your concept of the NJAG redefining what type means and scooping people off the streets is fantasy.  Any malum prohibitum law contains a compliance period.  That was done when the original AWB was,passed in NJ and is in all the legislation currently in the works.

Spirit and intent are open to interpretation. Do I always agree with it? No, but that's the way our system works.  SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal were fine at one time.  Years later they said it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, capt14k said:

@Griz you are wrong again about the 10th Amendment it does not give the states the right to interpret the 2nd Amendment however they see fit.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Not wrong.  50 states, 50 different sets of gun laws. Arizona gives one more gun rights than NJ.  That's the way it is.  As long as the state permits citizens to own guns that's in line with the 2A.  UNLESS, the state law is contrary to the 2A.  That gets determined by Federal courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had to give others a lesson on reading the 2nd and now it looks like it is lesson time for the 10th.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is pretty straight forward. Federal Government Powers need to be granted by the Constitution.

Nor prohibited by it to the States. Seems some get tripped up on this part. 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment say the states do not have a right to infringe on freedom of religion, press, assembly, speech, and to keep and bear arms. That should be simple.

Are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This means if it is not covered in the Constitution then it is up to the states to make laws regarding the matter. Of course the commerce clause has been used as an end around to the 10th and Liberal SCOTUS butchered the Constitution and States Rights under the 10th in Roe v Wade decision. However there is no way no how the states should be able to infringe on the 2nd because of the 10th.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Not wrong.  50 states, 50 different sets of gun laws. Arizona gives one more gun rights than NJ.  That's the way it is.  As long as the state permits citizens to own guns that's in line with the 2A.  UNLESS, the state law is contrary to the 2A.  That gets determined by Federal courts.
BS and if that isn't an Anti Statement I don't know what is. The state does not permit a right. Especially one that is both God Given and Constitutionally Protected. Have the courts erroneously allowed it, yes, but that will soon change.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I've had to give others a lesson on reading the 2nd and now it looks like it is lesson time for the 10th.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is pretty straight forward. Federal Government Powers need to be granted by the Constitution.

Nor prohibited by it to the States. Seems some get tripped up on this part. 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment say the states do not have a right to infringe on freedom of religion, press, assembly, speech, and to keep and bear arms. That should be simple.

Are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This means if it is not covered in the Constitution then it is up to the states to make laws regarding the matter. Of course the commerce clause has been used as an end around to the 10th and Liberal SCOTUS butchered the Constitution and States Rights under the 10th in Roe v Wade decision. However there is no way no how the states should be able to infringe on the 2nd because of the 10th.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

BS and if that isn't an Anti Statement I don't know what is. The state does not permit a right. Especially one that is both God Given and Constitutionally Protected. Have the courts erroneously allowed it, yes, but that will soon change.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Yeah, throw out that ANTI label when you have nothing else to say!  I know where I stand and you can believe whatever you want.  If you think SCOTUS is going to rule all gun laws unconstitutional you're wrong.

Based on your unlimited interpretation of the 1A and 2A there should be no state laws governing either.  How does any state get away with having any gun laws?  They all would be unconstitutional by your standard.  How do municipalities get away requiring permits for assemblies?  A 1A violation by your standard.

The fact is all rights are regulated.  You are compelled to submit to a search to get on a commercial airplane.  You can be compelled to submit to a Customs search entering or leaving the country.  You're required to prove your citizenship when entering the country.  All can be considered 4A and 5A violations by your definition.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Yeah, throw out that ANTI label when you have nothing else to say!  I know where I stand and you can believe whatever you want.  If you think SCOTUS is going to rule all gun laws unconstitutional you're wrong.
Based on your unlimited interpretation of the 1A and 2A there should be no state laws governing either.  How does any state get away with having any gun laws?  They all would be unconstitutional by your standard.  How do municipalities get away requiring permits for assemblies?  A 1A violation by your standard.
The fact is all rights are regulated.  You are compelled to submit to a search to get on a commercial airplane.  You can be compelled to submit to a Customs search entering or leaving the country.  You're required to prove your citizenship when entering the country.  All can be considered 4A and 5A violations by your definition.
 


I do believe permits to assemble for peaceful protest should be Unconstitutional.

The searchs are allowed in the name of security all while sacrificing freedom.

The Second Amendment is very clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any barrier the states put in the way of ownership is an infringement. This includes background checks and permits. Thomas and Alito agree that states should not be able to impose restrictions on the 2nd because of the 14th. See dissent in Beccerra. Gorsuch and Kennedy's replacement likely will agree as well. Roberts may go along for the win or if RBG finally kicks the bucket and Trump makes the right choice her replacement will agree as well. So yes I believe sooner than later all firearms laws that infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms will be ruled Unconstitutional as they should be.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, capt14k said:


 

 


I do believe permits to assemble for peaceful protest should be Unconstitutional.

The searchs are allowed in the name of security all while sacrificing freedom.

The Second Amendment is very clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any barrier the states put in the way of ownership is an infringement. This includes background checks and permits. Thomas and Alito agree that states should not be able to impose restrictions on the 2nd because of the 14th. See dissent in Beccerra. Gorsuch and Kennedy's replacement likely will agree as well. Roberts may go along for the win or if RBG finally kicks the bucket and Trump makes the right choice her replacement will agree as well. So yes I believe sooner than later all firearms laws that infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms will be ruled Unconstitutional as they should be.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

 

Okay.  How many years is it going to take for SCOTUS to hear all these cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay.  How many years is it going to take for SCOTUS to hear all these cases?


At least 3 years, but it could only take one case for them to wipe out a lot of Unconstitutional Laws.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GRIZ said:

So you're saying all those executive, legislative, and judicial jobs are for someone else not me.  Hold them personally responsible but its not going to be me?  As i said before a law may be in effect for years before it gets in front of a court and is ruled unconstitutional. How are legislators supposed to predict what the court will find after they pass a bill?  How is the chief executive supposed to know?  Do you have a crystal ball that will tell them?   If it were your 18 year old daughter that was kidnapped and raped would you be saying "Good for Mr. Miranda" when his conviction was overturned?  It is not the executive or legislative branches responsibility to determine if a law is constitutional. Its the judicial branch that does that.  Thats in the COTUS.   That's following the COTUS.

Don't you think if good argument could be made against the NJ AWB in the nearly 30 years it's been in effect someone might have taken it to SCOTUS already?

There is 10A which reserves any powers not given in t b e COTUS to the states. 50 states have their own interpretation of what the right to keep and bear arms means.  That's in the COTUS.

Your idea of "personal responsibility" is very unrealistic.

You talked of a new "amendment".  You obviously have no idea what it takes to amend the COTUS.  The founders made it that way so it couldn't easily be changed.  

Your concept of the NJAG redefining what type means and scooping people off the streets is fantasy.  Any malum prohibitum law contains a compliance period.  That was done when the original AWB was,passed in NJ and is in all the legislation currently in the works.

Spirit and intent are open to interpretation. Do I always agree with it? No, but that's the way our system works.  SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal were fine at one time.  Years later they said it wasn't.

Lets break this down, the Miranda case is completely irrelevant to the discussion since it did not overturn any laws

 

As to NJ's Assault weapon ban, there are plenty of good arguments that could take it to SCOTUS over the last 30 years. The Judges allowing their personal political beliefs to inform their decisions instead of what the law was intended to mean doesn't change the fact the law is inherently unconstitutional. 

 

The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." which means that the states could put limitations on freedom of speech or firearms. Key word there however is "could". The 14th amendment however changed that which applies the Bill of Rights to the states too.

 

I never said holding politicians responsible would be easy or even viable in reality, The Idea that any politician would willingly vote to be held responsible for their actions is laughable. You were asking for possible improvements to the system not what was practical to accomplish in reality.

 

If they were making a new law then sure they'd have to have at minimum some type of compliance period. In the of NJ's AWB it's not a new law, it's not even technically a new interpretation as it's already interpreted that way, just look at the "Not M1 Carbines" also being illegal. It's just a matter of NJ Police not having enforced state laws up to that point. Is it likely to play out that way in reality, I doubt it but there is nothing stopping it.

 

Again of course this is not how our system works, these were ideas on how it could be improved. This along with any question of interpretation, the interpretation to be chosen will always be the one where government gets the least amount of power over the individual is the one to be chosen, would fix many of the issues facing are current system. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it would be a great improvement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2018 at 5:50 PM, JSF01 said:

Lets break this down, the Miranda case is completely irrelevant to the discussion since it did not overturn any laws

 

As to NJ's Assault weapon ban, there are plenty of good arguments that could take it to SCOTUS over the last 30 years. The Judges allowing their personal political beliefs to inform their decisions instead of what the law was intended to mean doesn't change the fact the law is inherently unconstitutional. 

 

The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." which means that the states could put limitations on freedom of speech or firearms. Key word there however is "could". The 14th amendment however changed that which applies the Bill of Rights to the states too.

 

I never said holding politicians responsible would be easy or even viable in reality, The Idea that any politician would willingly vote to be held responsible for their actions is laughable. You were asking for possible improvements to the system not what was practical to accomplish in reality.

 

If they were making a new law then sure they'd have to have at minimum some type of compliance period. In the of NJ's AWB it's not a new law, it's not even technically a new interpretation as it's already interpreted that way, just look at the "Not M1 Carbines" also being illegal. It's just a matter of NJ Police not having enforced state laws up to that point. Is it likely to play out that way in reality, I doubt it but there is nothing stopping it.

 

Again of course this is not how our system works, these were ideas on how it could be improved. This along with any question of interpretation, the interpretation to be chosen will always be the one where government gets the least amount of power over the individual is the one to be chosen, would fix many of the issues facing are current system. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it would be a great improvement

I know Miranda is not a law.  I used it as it is something everyone is aware of and understands.  It's revalence is it has to do with Constitutional Rights and unconstitutional acts.

No you never said holding politicians accountable would be viable or easy.  You don't write an amendment to enforce another amendment or write a law to enforce a law.  You might as well be discussing how people will go to Trenton with their torches and pitchforks to tar and feather all those politicians that voted for unconstitutional laws.

Yes, the 14A applies the Bill of Rights to the states.  SCOTUS has also said states can "reasonable restrictions" regarding firearms. 

How "M1 Carbine type" made its way into the NJ AW law is an oft discussed issue.  Although someone in this thread has already labeled me an "Anti"  I can assure you I am very much a 2A supporter for more time than many on this forum have been alive.  The AWB is stupid and accomplishes nothing as far as reducing crime or unnecessary  violence.

I don't understand what you're saying when you state, "It's just a matter of NJ Police not having enforced state laws up to that point".  Are you saying they passed another law (the AWB) because police were not enforcing other state laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GRIZ said:

I know Miranda is not a law.  I used it as it is something everyone is aware of and understands.  It's revalence is it has to do with Constitutional Rights and unconstitutional acts.

No you never said holding politicians accountable would be viable or easy.  You don't write an amendment to enforce another amendment or write a law to enforce a law.  You might as well be discussing how people will go to Trenton with their torches and pitchforks to tar and feather all those politicians that voted for unconstitutional laws.

Yes, the 14A applies the Bill of Rights to the states.  SCOTUS has also said states can "reasonable restrictions" regarding firearms. 

How "M1 Carbine type" made its way into the NJ AW law is an oft discussed issue.  Although someone in this thread has already labeled me an "Anti"  I can assure you I am very much a 2A supporter for more time than many on this forum have been alive.  The AWB is stupid and accomplishes nothing as far as reducing crime or unnecessary  violence.

I don't understand what you're saying when you state, "It's just a matter of NJ Police not having enforced state laws up to that point".  Are you saying they passed another law (the AWB) because police were not enforcing other state laws?

Miranda is irreverent to holding politicians responsible for bad laws, but if politicians had passed laws that infringed on Miranda's right's then yes they should be held responsible regardless of how vial Miranda was.

 

Such a proposed amendment is more then just enforcing other amendments, it would be providing guidance on how to interpret All the amendments and the constitution it's self. 

 

SCOTUS made a poor decision on that in order to get the compromise necessary in order to appease enough Justices to make a generally favorable ruling because the Justices are making decisions based on their own personal beliefs and not what was actually written (which they pretty much have been doing for close to 100 years now).

 

I think you are missing my point. At least according to every one here right now all M1 carbines are illegal in NJ regardless of whether or not they are actually labeled as M1 Carbines based on  the fact the law states "M1 Carbine Type". While that interpretation is completely valid it does cause a discrepancy. The M1 Carbine is not the only firearm that is identified with the qualifier of "type". Two other common ones being "Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms" and "M14S Type" both of which plenty of people in NJ currently own. So based entirely on current NJ law and active interpretations of said law, tomorrow police could start arresting everyone that owns AK and M14S variants regardless of what the receivers say because they are a "Type" that is banned. There doesn't need to be any grace period because the law has been on the books already for 30 years and they have been using that interpretation of "type" just as long. It's no different then if for the past 30 years the speed limit on a road has been 55 mph, but the police never ticketed any one doing less then 70 mph. they don't need a grace period to start ticketing people going faster then 55 mph since that has always been the speed limit.

 

Bringing it back to the point my AWB example was illustrating, despite the fact that the interpretation of the law could legitimately change in an instant and no one could argue it, people still risk owning those firearms. The same would hold true for holding politicians responsible any unconstitutional laws they pass especially when you give meaningful and set rules on how things are to be interpreted. If it's questionable and they deem it important enough they can try to pass an amendment that would allow it. Ultimately the Constitution and it's Amendments are the supreme laws of the land, so when politicians vote for unconstitutional laws they are in fact breaking the law.

 

And this thread needs more Pics so here is the Super Duper NJ Illegal Combo

m1_carbines_by_jsf001-dcd7su7.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...