Florida Sheriffs nullify federal gun laws

[The2ndAmendment]

What I do is present the truths, which you reject.

You claimed that the Courts are the final arbiter. You have yet to produce a way in which an executive may imprison an acquitted man, or how a JUDGE can overturn an acquittal, or how a legislative body can pass a Bill of Attainder to usurp a Jury's decision.

You have to show us which provision of the Constitution binds a Jury's decision to PRECEDENT.

So long as the People, via the Jury, have the final say in destroying their Peers, they are the Sovereigns, and the final arbiter is which laws are constitutional, and which ones are not.

An interesting take but tell me, what jury decided Roe v Wade, or Bush v Gore, or Brown v Board of Ed.? Was that a"jury" of nine by chance?

Roe v Wade is irrelevant, since no jury will [unanimously] convict a doctor or woman of murder for abortion (first trimester) in any blue/purple state, and no more than 1 out of 100 times in deep red states.

If Florida would have went ahead with it's recount, disregarding the Supreme Snort, the feds would have either done NOTHING or arrested them. When they went on trial, guess what, it is GUARANTEED that they would have been acquitted by at least half the jurors on partisan lines, and Gore would have been the President instead of Bush.

Brown vs Board of Ed:

Observing the struggles of people like Rosa Parks and other civil rights activists, a black child or parent sending their children to a white school would have been most likely convicted.

However, the Courts CAN overturn CONVICTIONS, but not acquittals. There were no jury trials for any of the plaintiffs in Brown, because the plaintiffs knew how that would result, so they sought recourse through the Courts themselves. Trial by Jury is a tool, not a utopia. Don't use the Jury trial when you know there's a 25% chance (or more) of being convicted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still have yet to produce a way in which a Government officer/branch/body can overturn an acquittal.

 

[The T]

You’re truly and ignorant putz.

Given the fact that the courts determine what is or is not Constitutional, Florida sheriffs will enforce any law ruled to be Constitutional, regardless their personal, subjective, and ignorant opinion (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

And Florida sheriffs will continue to obey Federal law, where failing to do so they will be in violation of the law and the Federal Constitution, and will be subject to punitive measures accordingly – having nothing to do with the ‘10th Amendment.’

No, they are throwing support toward the 2nd Amendment, and the SCOTUS has already affirmed the 2nd. Do you think the Court has the last say-so in the matter? Seriously? They DO NOT.

And who do you believe does, because you are incorrect.

No, I am not. How many branches of government are there? ALL check one upon the other. The ONLY way the Second can be nullified is if it is changed or stricken entirely from the Bill Of Rights dumbass...and that has to come from the people pushing the LEGISLATURE. Think they'll abolish it? Not only NO, but HELL NO.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You claimed that the Courts are the final arbiter. You have yet to produce a way in which an executive may imprison an acquitted man, or how a JUDGE can overturn an acquittal, or how a legislative body can pass a Bill of Attainder to usurp a Jury's decision.

You have to show us which provision of the Constitution binds a Jury's decision to PRECEDENT.

So long as the People, via the Jury, have the final say in destroying their Peers, they are the Sovereigns, and the final arbiter is which laws are constitutional, and which ones are not.

An interesting take but tell me, what jury decided Roe v Wade, or Bush v Gore, or Brown v Board of Ed.? Was that a"jury" of nine by chance?

TRANSLATION: I can't answer what you've said, so I'll ignore it and change the subject.

His answer was partially deceptive (unintentionally) and partially well thought out. I've never had to rebut an answer of that magnitude, and I was rather eager to do so.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

His position is incorrect. The People do not have the ultimate power, as I just showed. They could of course kill off the current government and start a new country but that is a different story.

But they do, no man can be destroyed, unless convicted by a Jury of Peers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Florida Sheriffs nullify federal gun laws

You’re truly and ignorant putz.

WHEREAS, Florida Sheriffs have continually supported the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, including the right to bear arms, and Florida Sheriffs affirm they will not assist, support, or condone any unconstitutional infringement of that right…

Given the fact that the courts determine what is or is not Constitutional, Florida sheriffs will enforce any law ruled to be Constitutional, regardless their personal, subjective, and ignorant opinion (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

And Florida sheriffs will continue to obey Federal law, where failing to do so they will be in violation of the law and the Federal Constitution, and will be subject to punitive measures accordingly – having nothing to do with the ‘10th Amendment.’

You were doing so good, then you went out of the ballpark. Tell me something, when did people turn into robots without any free will? Cops can always make the personal decision not to enforce a law, which is why they do not always hand out tickets just because someone was speeding.

By the way, Cooper applies to the states themselves, and has been effectively nullified. If it wasn't, no state would be able to allow medical use of marijuana because it is actually federal law backed up by multiple court decisions upholding the legality of the federal government regulating drugs. Yet, not only are many states allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana, it is even legal to use it for recreation in one state, and other states are considering the same thing.

By the way, I am not a law firm janitor, which is why I actually know what the law is, not just what I think it is.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 10th does not nor has it ever authorized nullification.

That's true... just as the 2nd has never authorized people to keep and bear arms. It merely forbid government from interfering with a right that existed long before the Constitution was written.

Similarly, the right for a jury to nullify an unjust or unconstitutional law, has existed much longer than the Constitution has. And no part of the Constitution (including the 10th amendment) takes away that right.

Nor do county sheriffs have the constitutional authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws.

They don't need "constitutional authority" to decide what the Constitution says. Just as the people don't need "constitutional authority" to keep and bear arms. Both have had those respective rights, from the beginning. All the Constitution could have done, is take that authority away. But it didn't, in either case.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The 10th does not nor has it ever authorized nullification.

That's true... just as the 2nd has never authorized people to keep and bear arms. It merely forbid government from interfering with a right that existed long before the Constitution was written.

Similarly, the right for a jury to nullify an unjust or unconstitutional law, has existed much longer than the Constitution has. And no part of the Constitution (including the 10th amendment) takes away that right.

Nor do county sheriffs have the constitutional authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws.

They don't need "constitutional authority" to decide what the Constitution says. Just as the people don't need "constitutional authority" to keep and bear arms. Both have had those respective rights, from the beginning. All the Constitution could have done, is take that authority away. But it didn't, in either case.

The part in bold is affirmed by the Ninth Amendment, the philosophical embodiment of the Enlightenment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The retained automatically implies that persons are endowed with their rights at birth, and only cede some of those rights (delegate) through a social contract (constitution).

 

[Little-Acorn]

They don't need "constitutional authority" to decide what the Constitution says. Just as the people don't need "constitutional authority" to keep and bear arms. Both have had those respective rights, from the beginning. All the Constitution could have done, is take that authority away. But it didn't, in either case.

The part in bold is affirmed by the Ninth Amendment, the philosophical embodiment of the Enlightenment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The retained automatically implies that persons are endowed with their rights at birth, and only cede some of those rights (delegate) through a social contract (constitution).

The leftists hate that idea. Most of them know that the Constitution says exactly that, and was written to transfer only a limited amount of authority from the people to the Federal government. All the rest was left to "The States, and the people".

And where did all of that "rest" come from? It was authority the people had from birth, not "given" to them by any document or government.

The leftists know that. But they will bend over backward to try to fool people into believing authority comes from government, and that government can take more and more authority without the people's consent.

"The government giveth, and the government taketh away" is the ideal that liberals try to achieve. And they are absolutely intolerant of any other idea.

 

[RandallFlagg]

They don't need "constitutional authority" to decide what the Constitution says. Just as the people don't need "constitutional authority" to keep and bear arms. Both have had those respective rights, from the beginning. All the Constitution could have done, is take that authority away. But it didn't, in either case.

The part in bold is affirmed by the Ninth Amendment, the philosophical embodiment of the Enlightenment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The retained automatically implies that persons are endowed with their rights at birth, and only cede some of those rights (delegate) through a social contract (constitution).

The leftists hate that idea. Most of them know that the Constitution says exactly that, and was written to transfer only a limited amount of authority from the people to the Federal government. All the rest was left to "The States, and the people".

And where did all of that "rest" come from? It was authority the people had from birth, not "given" to them by any document or government.

The leftists know that. But they will bend over backward to try to fool people into believing authority comes from government, and that government can take more and more authority without the people's consent.

"The government giveth, and the government taketh away" is the ideal that liberals try to achieve. And they are absolutely intolerant of any other idea.

I often wonder where the left derives their idea of the "glorious federal government"...it was NEVER designed to be the MONSTER that it is - and the founders are, indeed, rolling in their collective graves.

The original idea - or framework - was for the House to represent the PEOPLE of the states of the United States and ONLY the people within the bounds of the individual STATES. The SENATE was designed to represent the individual STATES and their needs and nothing more.

These Sheriffs are doing the right thing - Sheriffs - the only Constitutional form of law enforcement in these United States and NOT the armies that have been put together by both the states AND the federal government to keep us - the people - in line.

My, how we have bastardized the will of the founders.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I often wonder where the left derives their idea of the "glorious federal government"...

We don't, it's just a Necessary Evil, but bigger and more complicated than 220 years ago because so are our lives.

And the government you glorify was set up to let the Elites rule. They didn't even want the House. Read what they wrote and remember, they both hated and feared democracy. It's why so few were allowed to even vote let alone run anything.

 

[The T]

I often wonder where the left derives their idea of the "glorious federal government"...

We don't, it's just a Necessary Evil, but bigger and more complicated than 220 years ago because so are our lives.

And the government you glorify was set up to let the Elites rule. They didn't even want the House. Read what they wrote and remember, they both hated and feared democracy. It's why so few were allowed to even vote let alone run anything.

More complicated because Statist idiots such as YOU make it that way, and for your purposes of CONTROL. The principles of the Founders are solid and still apply regardless of what the calendar says...get it?

 

[RandallFlagg]

I often wonder where the left derives their idea of the "glorious federal government"...

We don't, it's just a Necessary Evil, but bigger and more complicated than 220 years ago because so are our lives.

And the government you glorify was set up to let the Elites rule. They didn't even want the House. Read what they wrote and remember, they both hated and feared democracy. It's why so few were allowed to even vote let alone run anything.

Why is it that liberals continually claim that the United States is a "democracy"? A Representative Republic is NOT a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

"A "necessary evil" always brings a smile to Lucifer and his minions" - Ralph Clarke

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They don't need "constitutional authority" to decide what the Constitution says. Just as the people don't need "constitutional authority" to keep and bear arms. Both have had those respective rights, from the beginning. All the Constitution could have done, is take that authority away. But it didn't, in either case.

The part in bold is affirmed by the Ninth Amendment, the philosophical embodiment of the Enlightenment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The retained automatically implies that persons are endowed with their rights at birth, and only cede some of those rights (delegate) through a social contract (constitution).

The leftists hate that idea. Most of them know that the Constitution says exactly that, and was written to transfer only a limited amount of authority from the people to the Federal government. All the rest was left to "The States, and the people".

And where did all of that "rest" come from? It was authority the people had from birth, not "given" to them by any document or government.

The leftists know that. But they will bend over backward to try to fool people into believing authority comes from government, and that government can take more and more authority without the people's consent.

"The government giveth, and the government taketh away" is the ideal that liberals try to achieve. And they are absolutely intolerant of any other idea.

Ignorant nonsense.

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity.

And although inalienable, they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and it’s the Constitution’s case law that codifies the jurisprudence judges and justices use to determine whether a law seeking to restrict our civil liberties is valid (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)), or invalid (US v. Windsor (2013)).

Our rights are neither ‘ceded’ nor ‘delegated’ to anyone or anything, they are fundamental principles of individual liberty that protect the people from government excess when the state fails to justify its desire to restrict our civil liberties absent a proper legislative end (Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land, all states and local jurisdictions are subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court and the rulings of other Federal courts (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)). Federal laws are supreme and acts of Congress presumed to be Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise (US v. Lopez (1995)).

The Tenth Amendment has never afforded the states or local jurisdictions the authority to ‘nullify’ acts of Congress or rulings by the Federal courts (US v. Darby (1941)). It was never the intent of the Framers that the states be ‘supreme’ to the Federal government; it was the original understand and desire of the American people that their relationship be direct to the Federal government absent interference by the states, where Americans are first and foremost citizens of the Unites States, entitled to the protections of the Federal Constitution, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)).

The OP and those who agree with him are at liberty to continue to adhere to their crippling ignorance, or use the above as an outline to do their own research and free themselves from their crippling ignorance they so blatantly display.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So the leftists have deemed themselves the arbiters of Constitutional law and federal law, and they get to decide which federal laws are valid and which are invalid? Man, that is some SCARY shit!

Every state legislature or voter initiative that has passed legislation legalizing marijuana are VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW.

Every non-U.S. citizen who crosses our borders without a visa or passport are VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW.

But the leftists support legalizing marijuana and granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Lack of integrity and lack of logic are the building blocks that leftist ideals are based on.

Progressivism = Lawlessness.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So the leftists have deemed themselves the arbiters of Constitutional law and federal law, and they get to decide which federal laws are valid and which are invalid? Man, that is some SCARY shit!

Every state legislature or voter initiative that has passed legislation legalizing marijuana are VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW.

Every non-U.S. citizen who crosses our borders without a visa or passport are VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW.

But the leftists support legalizing marijuana and granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Lack of integrity and lack of logic are the building blocks that leftist ideals are based on.

Progressivism = Lawlessness.

You keep saying we want more laws? Which is it, make up your mind.

 

[Clementine]

This administration only follows laws they create. They think your rights are something they allow. They ignore laws that aren't convenient for them, like immigration and even Obamacare to some extent. Some states ignore immigration laws and the administration supports them. They sue states that actually do follow the laws.

Immigration laws are constitutional. Gun ownership is a right, not subject to debate. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it's a tax and not a tax at the same time (making it illegal on both counts).

The left says health care is a right and apparently living off the tax payers is a right. I don't know what constitution they are following, but it's not the one our forefathers wrote.

This administration doesn't let a little thing like the constitution get in their way and says obey them or they'll sic Holder, the NSA or the IRS on you. Standing up for your rights is dangerous with this regime. If they want you to have rights, they'll give them to you. I'd say that is about as Authoritarian as it gets.

The sheriffs are in the right here. They, like Obama, have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. Obama should be the one in the hot seat, not them. It's no wonder the left treats our constitution like it's propaganda. They'd rather most people weren't aware of their rights because it makes it harder to trample them. Only in the liberal wasteland is believing in our constitution and bill of rights considered radical.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The part in bold is affirmed by the Ninth Amendment, the philosophical embodiment of the Enlightenment:


The retained automatically implies that persons are endowed with their rights at birth, and only cede some of those rights (delegate) through a social contract (constitution).

The leftists hate that idea. Most of them know that the Constitution says exactly that, and was written to transfer only a limited amount of authority from the people to the Federal government. All the rest was left to "The States, and the people".

And where did all of that "rest" come from? It was authority the people had from birth, not "given" to them by any document or government.

The leftists know that. But they will bend over backward to try to fool people into believing authority comes from government, and that government can take more and more authority without the people's consent.

"The government giveth, and the government taketh away" is the ideal that liberals try to achieve. And they are absolutely intolerant of any other idea.

Ignorant nonsense.

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity.

And although inalienable, they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and it’s the Constitution’s case law that codifies the jurisprudence judges and justices use to determine whether a law seeking to restrict our civil liberties is valid (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)), or invalid (US v. Windsor (2013)).

Our rights are neither ‘ceded’ nor ‘delegated’ to anyone or anything, they are fundamental principles of individual liberty that protect the people from government excess when the state fails to justify its desire to restrict our civil liberties absent a proper legislative end (Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land, all states and local jurisdictions are subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court and the rulings of other Federal courts (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)). Federal laws are supreme and acts of Congress presumed to be Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise (US v. Lopez (1995)).

The Tenth Amendment has never afforded the states or local jurisdictions the authority to ‘nullify’ acts of Congress or rulings by the Federal courts (US v. Darby (1941)). It was never the intent of the Framers that the states be ‘supreme’ to the Federal government; it was the original understand and desire of the American people that their relationship be direct to the Federal government absent interference by the states, where Americans are first and foremost citizens of the Unites States, entitled to the protections of the Federal Constitution, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)).

The OP and those who agree with him are at liberty to continue to adhere to their crippling ignorance, or use the above as an outline to do their own research and free themselves from their crippling ignorance they so blatantly display.

Let me get this straight.

Rights have absolutely nothing to do with the government, cannot be given away, nor can they be taken by force, yet they are still subject to limits by the government that has no say in their existence? How, exactly, does your brain not commit suicide after spending more than 30 seconds inside your skull?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I often wonder where the left derives their idea of the "glorious federal government"...

We don't, it's just a Necessary Evil, but bigger and more complicated than 220 years ago because so are our lives.

And the government you glorify was set up to let the Elites rule. They didn't even want the House. Read what they wrote and remember, they both hated and feared democracy. It's why so few were allowed to even vote let alone run anything.

Why is it that liberals continually claim that the United States is a "democracy"? A Representative Republic is NOT a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

"A "necessary evil" always brings a smile to Lucifer and his minions" - Ralph Clarke

The US is a Democratic Republic. Find another subject for your soapbox.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The part in bold is affirmed by the Ninth Amendment, the philosophical embodiment of the Enlightenment:


The retained automatically implies that persons are endowed with their rights at birth, and only cede some of those rights (delegate) through a social contract (constitution).

The leftists hate that idea. Most of them know that the Constitution says exactly that, and was written to transfer only a limited amount of authority from the people to the Federal government. All the rest was left to "The States, and the people".

And where did all of that "rest" come from? It was authority the people had from birth, not "given" to them by any document or government.

The leftists know that. But they will bend over backward to try to fool people into believing authority comes from government, and that government can take more and more authority without the people's consent.

"The government giveth, and the government taketh away" is the ideal that liberals try to achieve. And they are absolutely intolerant of any other idea.

Ignorant nonsense.

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity.

And although inalienable, they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and it’s the Constitution’s case law that codifies the jurisprudence judges and justices use to determine whether a law seeking to restrict our civil liberties is valid (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)), or invalid (US v. Windsor (2013)).

Our rights are neither ‘ceded’ nor ‘delegated’ to anyone or anything, they are fundamental principles of individual liberty that protect the people from government excess when the state fails to justify its desire to restrict our civil liberties absent a proper legislative end (Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land, all states and local jurisdictions are subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court and the rulings of other Federal courts (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)). Federal laws are supreme and acts of Congress presumed to be Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise (US v. Lopez (1995)).

The Tenth Amendment has never afforded the states or local jurisdictions the authority to ‘nullify’ acts of Congress or rulings by the Federal courts (US v. Darby (1941)). It was never the intent of the Framers that the states be ‘supreme’ to the Federal government; it was the original understand and desire of the American people that their relationship be direct to the Federal government absent interference by the states, where Americans are first and foremost citizens of the Unites States, entitled to the protections of the Federal Constitution, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)).

The OP and those who agree with him are at liberty to continue to adhere to their crippling ignorance, or use the above as an outline to do their own research and free themselves from their crippling ignorance they so blatantly display.

Laws or decisions that are contrary to natural and, therefore, constitutional law have no legitimacy whatsoever, and the principle of nullification has a long and effectively irreversible history. You really are an idiot, Jones. The real world doesn't cooperate with your fantasies and never has. You can babble your trash all you want, but you fascists pigs are not going to push patriots around anymore. Like never before in recent years, lines in the sand are being drawn all across this country at every level of government and agency over a growing number of vital concerns, and the people drawing them are not going to retreat.

Millions are fed up with the encroachments on INALIENABLE RIGHTS, you retard. Your observation is not truth, but obtuseness; not an argument, but an unmistakable threat of violence, though, no doubt, the reality of that flies right over your stupid head.

Hence, the only thing that punks like you understand is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid heads. The fact that you imply that the federal government may legitimately disarm the people demonstrates the fear of a guilty conscious aware that its intent is to undermine the people's ability to resist the imposition of its tyranny.

The very notion that the government can suppress the free exercise of ideological convictions in terms of behavior or expression in the private or public sector, the very notion of gun control concerning the ownership of semi-automatic guns or rifles are existential threats, and they have not gone unnoticed for what they are.

What fascist whores like you have failed to detect in the last decade especially is the swelling wave of a fierce and unrelenting storm of people who are more than willing to tell legislatures and judges to go to hell and back their course of action with equal force.

We are on the verge of riot and chaos in this country that will make the Sixties look like a garden party, a little counter-cultural revolution of the armed kind. Patriots don't do flowers.

Check?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We don't, it's just a Necessary Evil, but bigger and more complicated than 220 years ago because so are our lives.

And the government you glorify was set up to let the Elites rule. They didn't even want the House. Read what they wrote and remember, they both hated and feared democracy. It's why so few were allowed to even vote let alone run anything.

Why is it that liberals continually claim that the United States is a "democracy"? A Representative Republic is NOT a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

"A "necessary evil" always brings a smile to Lucifer and his minions" - Ralph Clarke

The US is a Democratic Republic. Find another subject for your soapbox.

No. The United States, and all of the Several States that have acceded to it, are Republics, and Republics only.

Article IV, Section 4, United States Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The people do not vote directly to enact legislation (especially at the federal level).

The people do not vote as a whole to determine a verdict in court.

Please tell us which part of Government is ultimately subject to popular vote? Can't be the Legislature, since Representatives can ignore the people who elected them. Can't be the Judiciary, since the people cannot vote on a Bill of Attainder to override a Jury's decision. Can't be the Executive, unless we're talking about the entire Militia becoming active, which is still under the command o the President, unless he is acting in an unconstitutional manner.