Man arrested for having '2 extra bullets' in his sidearm's magazine.
- Thread starter The_Outlaw
- Start date
apvbguy
New member
sir. you may be 100% correct but the supreme court has issued it's ruling and it currently stands as the law of the land.
it is a far from perfect ruling but until it is challenged and or clarified it is what we have to deal with.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Then I say.... It's time to challenge it!
No court of the land has the authority to diminish the rights affirmed by the constitution.
Just because SCOTUS has ruled, it doesn't make it legal or correct.
Damn it people, make some noise and let's get the ball rolling!
Sent from behind enemy lines.
Deserteagle
New member
I agree that there are a lot who disrespect us citizens. And we need to weed them out. I just do not agree with the general LE bashing which is directed at law enforcement as a whole rather than the ones who deserve the bashing.
Article 3 Section 1 of the US Constitution
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
We can kick them out at any time.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
We can kick them out at any time.
I repeat: An unconstitutional law is no law at all. 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 (it's written, above in another post). I am a free man!
As an American Citizen, I have not only the right to disobey, but also an obligation to disobey, an unconstitutional law. And, if a law is unconstitutional, no one has the authority to enforce it, because the Constitution is our rule of law.
Now. If someone passes a law that infringes on my right to keep and bear arms (no conditions written in the 2A), by limiting or taking away my inalienable right; and some agent of "no-law" enforcement attempts to arrest me for "violating" a "no-law-at-all" then I will take any action that I deem appropriate. (And I have not a care if the Supreme Court has had time to deem it unconstitutional or not. They rank right up there with Janet Napollycrackpot, in my book.)
I'm too old to fight, and damn sure too set in my ways to just bend over and take it from someone who is violating my rights, so they'd best be prepared to face the consequences -- I am.
apvbguy
New member
until challenged, reversed, clarified or legislated out it is what is legal regardless of correctness
apvbguy
New member
until the law is altered you are subject to adhering to it. if you fail to follow the law it is at your own peril good luck with that!
CharlesMorrison
Banned
I stand by what is posted below..
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
Deal with it and move on....
Sent from behind enemy lines.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
Deal with it and move on....
Sent from behind enemy lines.
apvbguy
New member
great stuff, now go prove your point by being the guinea pig test case!
Deserteagle
New member
This is the problem: Who are you and what authority do you have to decide if a law is unconstitutional? That is the job for the courts, not individuals.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
potterengineer
New member
How many rounds were in the leo's magazine, they all carry glocks with 10 rounds or more and the new safe act didn't maje exception for law enforcement.
jrs
New member
Amendments to the SAFE Act were made within the last budget legislation passed in April. It is my understanding that it now exempts the police from the 7 round limit and some other provisions of the law considered too restrictive for LEO purposes.
I'm not an attorney, and never played one on TV, so I can't quote where in the law the changes appear.
Nor am I LE, but I do respect what they do and the dangers they face on a daily basis. The whole point of this POS law was to further limit our rights and move our society further left, making us more dependent on the government. For you outside of NY, don't kid yourself....this is the "test case" for the rest of the country.
Someone earlier suggested that we move out of NY. I've actually written to all of my elected representatives, both State and Federal, to let them know that once I get my professional licensing and logistics of moving my business OUT of NY State, I would be taking my disposable income, equity from the sale of my home, as well as my State Income Tax & Business tax dollars elsewhere, to a NO Income Tax state. I explained to them that the SAFE Act was just one piece of the equation, but the weight of taxes(property & income), liberal spending on welfare and giveaway programs, as well as intrusions into our privacy rights (scouring of medical records for certain Rx) for the purpose of revoking CCW permits, is getting to the point where the straw is about to break this camel's back.
I'm actually about one to two years from getting out of here. The house is for sale here, my paperwork is in to get my license(s) in another state, and I already have the house there. So, all I'll have to do is pack and ship.
I've also explained that like me, others I know in my income range (not rich, but paying too much to keep the takers in booze, cigarettes and lottery tickets) are making the same plans, so they'll have to count on Bloomberg and his crowd to "pay the freight" for the takers.
Finally, I reminded them that ...so goes the population (out of NY)...so goes their jobs. New York actually lost a seat in the US House of Representatives due to its reduction in population. I will help them lose another.
Subject? to adhere to it? Bull S H I T (ship high in transit). I am a free man! That means it is my choice... not subject to. At my peril? Maybe. But for sure at the peril of the poor fatherless child that is sent to enforce an unconstitutional law. Like I said, it behooves them to be ready to face the consequences... because I am. That's just the way it is.
apvbguy
New member
do you carry a gun in TX with or without that government issued permission slip?
I find that most peculiar considering that the second is the only one stating from the get go and in it's actual text that it shall not be infringed on.
apvbguy
New member
I am only repeating their decision, you could take it up with your local congress critter, but I bet he is clueless on the issue
Its an unconstitutional law and will eventually be thrown out.
Just because some idiots passed this law doesn't make it right. Now that someone has been charged, it can be appealed. Eventually it should make its way to the supreme court where they will throw this ******** law out. Both Massachusetts and New York are going to have their new laws challenged in court. The sooner the better.
Just because some idiots passed this law doesn't make it right. Now that someone has been charged, it can be appealed. Eventually it should make its way to the supreme court where they will throw this ******** law out. Both Massachusetts and New York are going to have their new laws challenged in court. The sooner the better.
