Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually no gun law other than the 2nd amendment is legal or constitutional.
You would be wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restrictions are Constitutional. No one has challenged DC on the loaded weapon in public law. Which means until it is challenged and the Courts accept it the law is not only enforceable but Constitutional.
If this guy thought the law was not he should have challenged it in Court. Ohh wait, he doesn't live in DC and so has no grounds to challenge it in Court.
The Supreme Snort also upheld Jim Crow laws.
Martin Luther King:
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
Actually no gun law other than the 2nd amendment is legal or constitutional.
You would be wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restrictions are Constitutional. No one has challenged DC on the loaded weapon in public law. Which means until it is challenged and the Courts accept it the law is not only enforceable but Constitutional.
If this guy thought the law was not he should have challenged it in Court. Ohh wait, he doesn't live in DC and so has no grounds to challenge it in Court.
OOHHHAHHHHHH a bunch of activist judges think they know what the constitution means and is meant to say...color me shocked...I will stick by what the constitution actually says and I don't even prefer the constitution to the AOC...but its the law of the land for now.
Not even close to the same. By the way? DC is a special case, it is FEDERAL property. Congress makes the laws there. Once again one does not escalate a challenge to this level out of the gate. One first challenges in the courts. The guy doesn't even live in DC, he has no business there with a weapon.
Not even close to the same. By the way? DC is a special case, it is FEDERAL property. Congress makes the laws there. Once again one does not escalate a challenge to this level out of the gate. One first challenges in the courts. The guy doesn't even live in DC, he has no business there with a weapon.
This is based on the flawed premise that the government creates rights. The right to self-defense is inviolable, and it it the design and goal of government to protect that right, and any such government that would infringe upon that right, or any other unalienable right, is illegitimate, null and void, without force.
Not even close to the same. By the way? DC is a special case, it is FEDERAL property. Congress makes the laws there. Once again one does not escalate a challenge to this level out of the gate. One first challenges in the courts. The guy doesn't even live in DC, he has no business there with a weapon.
This is based on the flawed premise that the government creates rights. The right to self-defense is inviolable, and it it the design and goal of government to protect that right, and any such government that would infringe upon that right, or any other unalienable right, is illegitimate, null and void, without force.
We are a Nation of laws. Take your ignorant tripe somewhere else.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
If the supreme court is OK'ed by the constitution its there to make sure the constitution is upheld not to determine what's constitutional or not. Its all right there in black and white. Its certainly not there to pick and choose what laws and amendments to uphold and what ones to pick at and dismantle.
If the supreme court is OK'ed by the constitution its there to make sure the constitution is upheld not to determine what's constitutional or not. Its all right there in black and white. Its certainly not there to pick and choose what laws and amendments to uphold and what ones to pick at and dismantle.
Shall I quote for you the specific authority power and scope? Article III states that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on all matters regarding the law. It specifically states that any dispute between a person or State and the federal Government shall be either the primary or appellate concern of the Supreme Court.
This means that when a person or State claim a law or authority are not Constitutional it goes before the Courts and the final decider is the Supreme Court. And it has been so since the day the Constitution became the law of the land.
This is based on the flawed premise that the government creates rights. The right to self-defense is inviolable, and it it the design and goal of government to protect that right, and any such government that would infringe upon that right, or any other unalienable right, is illegitimate, null and void, without force.
We are a Nation of laws. Take your ignorant tripe somewhere else.
And within our Constitution, the Fundamental Law, we have the Ninth Amendment, that retains all rights of the People, other than those delegated to their governments.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Among those rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
And your Progressive and Statist horseshit claiming the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document can kiss the Second Amendment when the revolution comes.
The supreme court stated the the gun laws in DC were unconstitutional and the DC government and police force have ignored that decision for almost five years. You cannot challenge a law in the supreme court unless it directly impacts you. He simply made it apply to himself.
The warrant that was used to arrest him did not specify drugs - that evidence is inadmissible in any court because it was beyond the scope of the warrant. He has not been charged with the gun issue yet. Perhaps that will come next. He is too well known to just ship off to Guantanamo and permanently silenced. He was arrested by Park rangers?? not any police department. I will be watching this case with great interest .
The supreme court stated the the gun laws in DC were unconstitutional and the DC government and police force have ignored that decision for almost five years. You cannot challenge a law in the supreme court unless it directly impacts you. He simply made it apply to himself.
The warrant that was used to arrest him did not specify drugs - that evidence is inadmissible in any court because it was beyond the scope of the warrant. He has not been charged with the gun issue yet. Perhaps that will come next. He is too well known to just ship off to Guantanamo and permanently silenced. He was arrested by Park rangers?? not any police department. I will be watching this case with great interest .
The Supreme Court never stated that D.C.'s ban on open-carry was unConstitutional.
The supreme court stated the the gun laws in DC were unconstitutional and the DC government and police force have ignored that decision for almost five years. You cannot challenge a law in the supreme court unless it directly impacts you. He simply made it apply to himself.
The warrant that was used to arrest him did not specify drugs - that evidence is inadmissible in any court because it was beyond the scope of the warrant. He has not been charged with the gun issue yet. Perhaps that will come next. He is too well known to just ship off to Guantanamo and permanently silenced. He was arrested by Park rangers?? not any police department. I will be watching this case with great interest .
The Supreme Court never stated that D.C.'s ban on open-carry was unConstitutional.
And they probably wouldn't hell there are States where open carry is not legal.
