I just don't get it. Hundreds of people on here proclaiming that they are willing to break the law when illegal gun laws are passed.
Where were all you guys when people like me were being jailed and prosecuted and stripped of their rights for doing the exact same thing?
How is carrying a gun for protection in a city where it isn't allowed by a clearly unconstitutional regulation any different from keeping your weapons when they are unconstitutionally banned?
You are all about to get a taste of what it feels like to have to live with your family unprotected. And deservedly so. You guys didn't care about the thousands who "lost" rights and even ridicule them because it didn't affect you.
If you cared about gun rights you wouldn't have condoned lifetime restrictions for others.
Karma. It's all yours. Own it
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I've seen a few references to your situation, but lack any understanding of the details. Based only on what you say here though, I am sympathetic to the decision you made. I honestly do not get how someone willingly complies with "laws" that run counter to that which our Founders defined as deriving from God Himself. Even relying only on the law itself, there are hundreds of thousands of scholarly words devoted to the premise that an unconstitutional law is no law at all, this one being among the most oft-cited:
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... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Link Removed
And this is how Jefferson instructed his contemporaries and future members of the judiciary to decide constitutional questions:
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
The available quotes from Founders and their contemporaries describing the original intent that Jefferson refers to above re: the 2nd Amendment, are voluminous. Everyone from George Washington to Samuel Adams to Hamilton, Franklin and Madison stated unequivocally that no man should ever be prohibited the use of arms. In a thousand different ways by a thousand different American Revolutionaries, the right to keep and bear arms was defined as an individual, fundamental,
natural right of man, and that was a bedrock premise that led to the Constitution being ratified by the original 13 states. No way would it have been ratified absent either the 2nd Amendment within the Bill of Rights, or another way of guaranteeing the right within the body of the Constitution.
Washington, in his Farewell Address, said the following:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
— George Washington, Link Removed, 1796
This government is already destroyed. Washington et al were
seers. Only in the context of a massive
failure of this government under the Constitution they fought, killed and died for to create could a citizen be made a felon for keeping arms to protect himself and his family. Any so-called "supporter" of the 2nd Amendment who cannot understand that is not a citizen, they are a subject. Someone with a black robe tells you it's a "law," and you follow it, no questions asked. Someone wearing a government-issued gun and costume denoting authority, and you
obey them, no questions asked. Then when someone stands up to this same usurpation, you impugn them, you call them names, you ridicule them, you draw straw-man parallels and say
you'll cross that bridge in
your own way when
you come to it, while spouting platitudes about legalities and laws that, if the supreme law were actually being followed, would be
no laws at all.
One of Madison's many quotes on the subject of constitutional originalism:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
— James Madison
I am truly amazed that any semblance of original meaning for the 2nd Amendment survived as long as it did. So many damned sheep have gotten used to benevolent wolves running them. You have trained yourselves. When the wolves stop being benevolent, which they will decide for their own purposes and on their own schedule and by the means only they choose, you will no longer be sheep....you'll be trained sitting ducks.
Like I said, I don't know the details of accidentalfelon's case, but I definitely know the irony of which he speaks in his OP. A future unconstitutional "law," or an existing unconstitutional "law," it makes no difference. Neither
are law according to the men who wrote our supreme set of laws, and no man is bound to obey it, nor is any court authorized to enforce it. Only two kinds of people disagree with that; sheep and the tyrants who
own them.
Blues
