Colorado has fallen
- Thread starter Krohbar
- Start date
CharlesMorrison
Banned
You know the drill Patriot! Rinse and repeat if necessary.
Neither side looks good on this.
Surely someone intent on committing a mass murder is going to obey the law on limited magazine capacity.
But just as disturbing as Mike Johnston's reasoning is this:
Challenge, yes. Disobey and you aren't any different from any other criminal.
I wonder if those two senators would encourage people to disobey any laws they did vote for.
Surely someone intent on committing a mass murder is going to obey the law on limited magazine capacity.
But just as disturbing as Mike Johnston's reasoning is this:
Challenge, yes. Disobey and you aren't any different from any other criminal.
I wonder if those two senators would encourage people to disobey any laws they did vote for.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Only the unconstitutional ones!
I love posting this article!!
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 Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.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.
I love posting this article!!
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.
Greggatshack
Member
The way I read this then is that any law or statute that has been enacted that controls guns in any part of the USA is therefore unconstitutional (by virtue of it infringing on your right to bear arms), and doesn't have to be obeyed. So you shouldn't have to get concealed carry permits for one thing? You can ignore any statutes that forbid you to carry firearms in schools or courts etc. for another? Am I on the right track here?
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Exactly the right track.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
See... We have been conditioned to accept laws without question.
Gun control flys directly in the face of the Constitution.
So what... A few monkeys in robes apply their own set of morals, understanding and its supposed to be OK?
Man, if every person that owns a gun stood up and called BS on SCOTUS and Congress, then the S would HTF!
I know it sounds amazingly stupid but its actually very simple.
See, people (re-SCOTUS, Congress etc.) got together and decided between themselves that for the good of the society, they would shape the constitution to fit their outlook. Hence gun control intended to fit within the moral fabric of our evolving society. Problem is, the Constitution lays out the things that are off limits to them.
Our Constitution was written to let our Government know what they had no authority to "meddle in". It is a document designed to tell the powers that be that these things are absolute.
Now, just because some turds got together and decided amongst themselves that they would "alter" those rights does not make it legal.
The Government cannot take a right from you! Only YOU can chose to give up that right.
I don't care WHO it was that decided the Constitution was a "living document" that needs to "grow and evolve" to fit the needs of society....that's a bunch of BS!
The simple fact is this.... The document can only be altered by a specific set of guidelines. You can't go and just "rearrange some wording or interpretation" and pass any laws because "you see it differently".
It doesn't work that way. The only way to have true and legal gun control is to amend the Constitution and change or remove the 2nd Amendment.... Period.
Someone let the camel into the tent and because of that, people figure "oh well, too late to stop it now!".
With NO legal challenges, look at how our fine elected officials have trampled on YOUR rights!
They screwed us with the 1st amendment.... Anyone who has secret service protection and does not like your opinion being voiced can now have you arrested!
They screwed us on the 4th too! You can now be held (indefinitely) if the POTUS decides he wants to hold onto you!
I could go on but I hope you get the idea.
By non compliance, YOU are giving up YOUR rights and all without a shot or a shout about it! It will continue this way until SOMEONE stands up and says NO MORE!
The Constitution is the law of the land.
See... We have been conditioned to accept laws without question.
Gun control flys directly in the face of the Constitution.
So what... A few monkeys in robes apply their own set of morals, understanding and its supposed to be OK?
Man, if every person that owns a gun stood up and called BS on SCOTUS and Congress, then the S would HTF!
I know it sounds amazingly stupid but its actually very simple.
See, people (re-SCOTUS, Congress etc.) got together and decided between themselves that for the good of the society, they would shape the constitution to fit their outlook. Hence gun control intended to fit within the moral fabric of our evolving society. Problem is, the Constitution lays out the things that are off limits to them.
Our Constitution was written to let our Government know what they had no authority to "meddle in". It is a document designed to tell the powers that be that these things are absolute.
Now, just because some turds got together and decided amongst themselves that they would "alter" those rights does not make it legal.
The Government cannot take a right from you! Only YOU can chose to give up that right.
I don't care WHO it was that decided the Constitution was a "living document" that needs to "grow and evolve" to fit the needs of society....that's a bunch of BS!
The simple fact is this.... The document can only be altered by a specific set of guidelines. You can't go and just "rearrange some wording or interpretation" and pass any laws because "you see it differently".
It doesn't work that way. The only way to have true and legal gun control is to amend the Constitution and change or remove the 2nd Amendment.... Period.
Someone let the camel into the tent and because of that, people figure "oh well, too late to stop it now!".
With NO legal challenges, look at how our fine elected officials have trampled on YOUR rights!
They screwed us with the 1st amendment.... Anyone who has secret service protection and does not like your opinion being voiced can now have you arrested!
They screwed us on the 4th too! You can now be held (indefinitely) if the POTUS decides he wants to hold onto you!
I could go on but I hope you get the idea.
By non compliance, YOU are giving up YOUR rights and all without a shot or a shout about it! It will continue this way until SOMEONE stands up and says NO MORE!
AndeyHall
Active member
Well as far as the US gov't is concerned, I do not own anymore guns. They have all been "sold" 
Thanks to our current federal and state laws I am not legally required to document any private gun sales, so if they were to ban possession of anything, I don't own anything anymore. Or do I? But I'll tell you right now, if they pass a magazine capacity limit law in SC, my "imaginary" mags will still be at full capacity!
I don't see how congress can "interpret" the 2nd amendment any way at all without coming to a screeching halt when they got to the word "infringed". Apparently they didn't look that one up in the dictionary.
Infringement: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
Now the 14th amendment basically says that the Bill of Rights applies to the states also. Therefore if this is the definition of infringement, isn't it unconstitutional that I have to go through the process of getting a CWP when the 2nd amendment clearly states that I have the right to bear arms and makes no mention of permits?
Thanks to our current federal and state laws I am not legally required to document any private gun sales, so if they were to ban possession of anything, I don't own anything anymore. Or do I? But I'll tell you right now, if they pass a magazine capacity limit law in SC, my "imaginary" mags will still be at full capacity!I don't see how congress can "interpret" the 2nd amendment any way at all without coming to a screeching halt when they got to the word "infringed". Apparently they didn't look that one up in the dictionary.
Infringement: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
Now the 14th amendment basically says that the Bill of Rights applies to the states also. Therefore if this is the definition of infringement, isn't it unconstitutional that I have to go through the process of getting a CWP when the 2nd amendment clearly states that I have the right to bear arms and makes no mention of permits?
CharlesMorrison
Banned
You are correct. If you need "permission" from your government to be able to own a weapon, that is infringement.
You do not need the approval of the government to exercise a right. CCW's are nothing more than a permission slip..... Period.
If more friggin people would wake up and realize this, we might not be in the mess where in now!
That's why I chose Vermont as my new residence. It is a Constitutional Carry state. No permission required... Period.
Open carry or concealed carry, your choice, free and clear!
You do not need the approval of the government to exercise a right. CCW's are nothing more than a permission slip..... Period.
If more friggin people would wake up and realize this, we might not be in the mess where in now!
That's why I chose Vermont as my new residence. It is a Constitutional Carry state. No permission required... Period.
Open carry or concealed carry, your choice, free and clear!
cgiven1
DAV-Patriot
Get serious! 15 rounds is plenty in a handgun. If you can't protect yourself with 15 rounds you better be dialing 911 on your cell phone. People who carry revolvers only have 5 or 6 rounds, maybe 8 if it's a .22
So don't make a big thing out of this.
Another useful idiot, so called gun owner. Might as well get started and turn yours in. If your naive enough to believe that magazine limits would do anything at all to stop, or decrease the severity of crimes then you are obviously not capable of the mental responsibility one should have to own one.
golocx4
Got Beretta's?
Apply the "Reasonable Man Rule".
The fact is CharlesMorrison is correct. You have no obligation to obey an Unconstitutional Law.
What a pile of candy-assed crap. So the bad and crazy guy carries two 15 rounders instead of one 30 rounder. At Virginia Tech, the worst of the worst in gun violence, almost all the mags in his 2 pistols were 10 rounders. This is all about feel-good nanny panny garbage from dems as they feed off the carcasses of 20 dead children at Sandy Hook and it sickens me. Tell me there was a reason that our imperial majesty had to trot a group of children (carefully selected to include a white, a black, a girl and an asian) to stand behind him when he first talked about gun violence after Sandy Hook. Tell me why Congress had to trot out a few citizens of Sandy Hook so they could denounce gun violence. These kids and these adults were used as dupes by these out of control gun control fanatics, who don't even know what they are talking about when they refer to the weapons etal that they are trying to control (lets face it is really is about eventual confiscation)--and officials in CO join this disgusting stupid bandwagon of idiocy and fanaticism.
golocx4
Got Beretta's?
's
The ultimate goal of the anti's is 100% registration, then confiscation. Just like smoking they have to take baby steps. Universal Background is a baby step.
They are going all in now because of the re-election of Obama, and the prospect that sometime in the next 4 years one of their own will get appointed to the Supreme Court. The complicit media has been hypnotizing the public that watches them. The Dept of Education (you know the ones that lock down the school because the pop tart looks like a gun) will have 18 years to indoctrinate america's chilrun to fear guns, drop trow and lean forward to take it up the arse.
Resign yourself to the fact that freedom in America is being fundamentally changed.
Yes...but only if you first define the right to bear arms as meaning any person, any place, any time and any weapon.
But that is not the law of our land.
Many wish it was, but it isn't.
So those who aren't dealing with reality are floundering under a delusion, and perhaps it is the delusional that are the very people who should not own firearms.
The theory here is "a foot in the door" any new legislation is bad legislation whether it makes sense or not. As far as following the law even if you don't believe it's constitutional. Good luck keeping them from taking your guns and locking you up or fining you. You will only avoid prosecution for as long as it takes the Swat team to take you out of your compound or burn it down. It's the extremists like you that make us all look like tards. Follow the law !!! If you thinks it's unconstitutional challenge it in court with the money you were going to spend on fines. Oh and get a grip.
AndeyHall
Active member
You're missing the point! "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the wording of the second amendment. How is this not an infringement of our rights? It's not about how many rounds it takes or how good of a shot you should be, it's about them wiping their asses with the Constitution every time they take a crap! People obviously aren't seeing it with the 2nd Amendment, but what happens when it's the 1st, or the 4th, 5th, or maybe the 6th? Where does it stop? What you don't understand is that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing standing in their way of passing or getting rid of any law/right they wish. You may think "No way...couldn't happen here!" I'm sure the Jews in Europe during the 1930s felt the same way...Get serious! 15 rounds is plenty in a handgun. If you can't protect yourself with 15 rounds you better be dialing 911 on your cell phone. People who carry revolvers only have 5 or 6 rounds, maybe 8 if it's a .22
So don't make a big thing out of this.
golocx4
Got Beretta's?
Cigarette smoking started off with a warning label as a foot in the door.
The BATF NIC Check with FFL's keeping the records for the BATF was a foot in the door.
Here is what happens when the foot in the door becomes the leg.
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.