• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

D.C. grabs guns from soldier

The ability to transport your firearms from one place to another in a safe manner should never be 'against the law', no matter what the local laws are in terms of possession.

This incident is just one more of the millions of examples of government out of control.
 
I think part of the problem is that there is no set standard for gun-ownership handling and guidelines.

Every state (as in this case: District) has their own flex for making their own regulations . . . in an effort to comply with your state - you might go out of compliance with another. It shouldn't be *that complicated* - it should make more sense to where there are some reliable standards.

If there are some standards governing transport that span nationally then we would have less issues: everyone would know the basic rules (proper gun carrying case that locks - disengaged components - separate holding for bullets - etc) . . . and people could follow them.

Teh states seem far from interested in working together and instead want to devise completely different standards only to make it more frustrating

This isn't the first case we've debated where someoen was just traveling - in compliance with the regulations in one area - and fell out of compliance while en route to their destination. They need to admit there's a problem - and address it.
 
writing a law that turns out to be unConstitutional, is not a crime.


It most certainly should be a crime,especially when that law blatantly violates the constitution. Blatantly violating the constitutions should be punished severely. In this case the law blatantly violates the constitution. You have the right not only keep firearms but you also have the right to bear them,which means carry. Its no different than a law fining you because you said George Bush can suck a huge donkey dick or a law that bans religion.


if it was, do you realize how many folks would be in jail?

how many laws are striken as unConstitutional every year?

How many folks were put into jail,lost property,constitutional rights lost or suffered financially because of a unconstitutional law?
 
A Soldier? As in the Solder was in uniform, on duty, and the cops took his issued weapon? The 1st General Order requires a Solder to use all means necessary to retain posative control over his service weapon. Without a direct order from my chain of command to surrender my issued service weapon, no one would take it off of me.

Ahh so you lied. He wasn't on duty. He wasn't in uniform. These are not issued service weapons.He was a civilian, and he broke the law. I don't agree with the law, in fact I'm passionately opposed to it, but since he wasn't on duty at the time it's dishonest for you to say the cops took weapons away from a solder. They took private weapons away from a civilian.

/thread

He is a commissioned officer in the South Carolina Army national guard,therefore he is a soldier. He will be a soldier as long as he stays in the army national guard or regular army. It doesn't matter if he was in his civies while traveling from one place to the other.You don't stop being a soldier just because you take off your uniform.
 
Exactly - which is why there's a process involved and it's a bit time consuming.
...and expensive.

Going somewhat OT, but I believe that many places knowingly enact laws of questionable Constitutionality precisely because they know that fighting them is expensive and time consuming. They know that most people will piss and moan, then at the end of the day do absolutely nothing about it.



This is just another example of the militarization of the United States. The cops jumped on the soldier because they could, not because they should. The law can be and often is interpreted at street level. From facts stated it appears the guy's intent was honest and true. Confiscation of his guns is bull****.

Fascism is a stone bitch, isn't it?
Is it possible that the officers "over-interpreted" the actual law?
 
It most certainly should be a crime,especially when that law blatantly violates the constitution. Blatantly violating the constitutions should be punished severely. In this case the law blatantly violates the constitution. You have the right not only keep firearms but you also have the right to bear them,which means carry....

making it a felony to author and then vote on a law that ends up being deemed unConstitutional by a Federal court, opens up a can of worms that I don't think you want to see.
 
lets try this another way:

legally, no law is unConstitutional until a Federal court deems it to be. Until such day arrives, a law is the law of the land.

No matter how many different ways you can come up with to say the same thing, it is still wrong.

The word “unconstitutional” has nothing whatsoever to do with what courts rule. It's not about courts, it is about the Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional. That is what the word means. It doesn't matter if a court has ruled on that law, or how a court has ruled. If the law violates the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional; and those who enacted it, and those who attempt to enforce it, are guilty of violating the Constitution.
 
No matter how many different ways you can come up with to say the same thing, it is still wrong.

The word “unconstitutional” has nothing whatsoever to do with what courts rule. It's not about courts, it is about the Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional. That is what the word means. It doesn't matter if a court has ruled on that law, or how a court has ruled....

and who decides if a law violates the Constitution?

the angry mob? the greedy bankers? the selfish hicks?

who decides?
 
I have a hard time with folks who seek anarchy & lawlessness.

That's only because you're making hack statements and not actually understanding what is being said (or caring to, either or). I'm not the one making absolute statements.
 
No matter how many different ways you can come up with to say the same thing, it is still wrong.

The word “unconstitutional” has nothing whatsoever to do with what courts rule. It's not about courts, it is about the Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional. That is what the word means. It doesn't matter if a court has ruled on that law, or how a court has ruled. If the law violates the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional; and those who enacted it, and those who attempt to enforce it, are guilty of violating the Constitution.
...and in the mean time?

I think what some are getting at is the period of time from when a law is enacted and the day that it is declared unconstitutional. Say a law banning free speech in newspapers was passed on January 1, 2012. Lawsuits take time to resolve. It may not be declared unconstitutional until August 1, 2014.

What happens between 1-1-12 and 8-1-14?

It's a question of practical reality.
 
making it a felony to author and then vote on a law that ends up being deemed unConstitutional by a Federal court, opens up a can of worms that I don't think you want to see.

I, for one, would be very happy to see that can opened.

Those who we trust with the power of government need to be held strictly accountable for how they use or misuse it. There is no excuse for not understanding the Constitution, and making sure that any use of government power occurs in strict obedience thereof.

The consequence of a law being enacted and enforced which violates the Constitution is that someone might be treated as a criminal for exercising what is, in fact, a Constitutionally-protected right.

Why should any official have the power to cause a citizen to be wrongfully prosecuted as a criminal, and not himself be subject to criminal charges for so doing?
 
I, for one, would be very happy to see that can opened.

Those who we trust with the power of government need to be held strictly accountable for how they use or misuse it. There is no excuse for not understanding the Constitution, and making sure that any use of government power occurs in strict obedience thereof.

The consequence of a law being enacted and enforced which violates the Constitution is that someone might be treated as a criminal for exercising what is, in fact, a Constitutionally-protected right.

Why should any official have the power to cause a citizen to be wrongfully prosecuted as a criminal, and not himself be subject to criminal charges for so doing?

again...

and who decides if a law violates the Constitution?

the angry mob? the greedy bankers? the selfish hicks?

who decides?
 
making it a felony to author and then vote on a law that ends up being deemed unConstitutional by a Federal court, opens up a can of worms that I don't think you want to see.

I would be more than happy to see that canned opened. Politicians should actually fear making unconstitutional laws.
 
lets try this another way:

legally, no law is unConstitutional until a Federal court deems it to be. Until such day arrives, a law is the law of the land.

One can moan & whine all they like that a law is unConstitutional, but until a Federal court says so.....one is breaking the law if they choose to violate such law.

that's our system. that's the way it is. anything else is anarchy.

That's partly true, but not exactly true. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the constitution. Per Marbury v Madison, a federal judge may judge the law when deciding a case. We know this.

However, in addition, a state judge is also bound by the constitution, and must take it into account when judging cases.

Look at the supremacy clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The judges in every state shall be bound by the constitution. This means that they must, as per Marbury, judge the laws as well as the facts, and they can base their decision on whether or not a law is unconstitutional.

Additionally, per the constitution: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

All executive officers in the several states must swear an oath to support the constitution. Thus, an executive officer could refuse to execute a law that is unconstitutional.

So I think you have it partly right. A federal judge may decide a case based upon the constitutionality of the law in question. But ALL judges in the states are also duty bound to do so as well, so they have the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Executive officers can also declare a law unconstitutional and refuse to execute it.
 
That's partly true, but not exactly true. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the constitution. Per Marbury v Madison, a federal judge may judge the law when deciding a case. We know this....

yes, ONLY a Federal judge can deem a law unConstitutional.

you, me, and everybody's uncle simply stating "its unConstitutional" has no legal bearing or standing.

this is our system of justice & laws. Its not perfect, but its damn good.
 
again...

and who decides if a law violates the Constitution?

the angry mob? the greedy bankers? the selfish hicks?

who decides?
The constitution is not written in legalese and is plain as day, so anyone who knows how to read English can actually read the constitution without being a lawyer. The constititon says you have the right to keep and bear arms, which means you have the right to own arms and the right to carry arms and it also states that those rights shall not be infringed. So obviously any law that states you can't carry your firearm is illegal, any law that says you need a license or to register your firearms is illegal,any law that says you must first wait for a certain number of days is illegal,any law that bans a certain firearm is illegal, any law that says you must do X before you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms is illegal. You should remember that the bill of rights is called the bill of rights not the bill of permissions. If you wish to add that certain conditions must be met in order to exercise your constitutional rights then you need to actually amend the constitution, which is something that seems foreign to liberals.
 
The constitution is not written in legalese and is plain as day, so anyone who knows how to read English can actually read the constitution without being a lawyer. The constititon says you have the right to keep and bear arms, which means you have the right to own arms and the right to carry arms and it also states that those rights shall not be infringed. So obviously any law that states you can't carry your firearm is illegal, any law that says you need a license or to register your firearms is illegal,any law that says you must first wait for a certain number of days is illegal,any law that bans a certain firearm is illegal, any law that says you must do X before you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms is illegal. You should remember that the bill of rights is called the bill of rights not the bill of permissions. If you wish to add that certain conditions must be met in order to exercise your constitutional rights then you need to actually amend the constitution, which is something that seems foreign to liberals.


You didn't answer the question.

Your entire post was just a dodge, a runaway, a weak attempt at misdirection.

try again.. ANSWER the question...

again...

and who decides if a law violates the Constitution?

the angry mob? the greedy bankers? the selfish hicks?

who decides?
 
yes, ONLY a Federal judge can deem a law unConstitutional.

Is this stated anywhere in the constitution?

you, me, and everybody's uncle simply stating "its unConstitutional" has no legal bearing or standing.

Well, of course you and I don't matter, as we're not state or federal executive officers, legislators, or judges. However, it is spelled out in the constitution that both judges, executive officers, and legislators MUST uphold the constitution. This obviously means that they must judge the constitutionality of the law, and act accordingly.
 
You didn't answer the question.

Your entire post was just a dodge, a runaway, a weak attempt at misdirection.

try again.. ANSWER the question...

Per the constitution:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

So according to the constitution, essentially all office holders in these united states, both federal and state must uphold the constitution. If something is unconstitutional, they must declare it so and act accordingly.

As an aside, individual citizens on a jury can, if presented with an unconstitutional act, make their decision accordingly as well.
 
Is this stated anywhere in the constitution?



Well, of course you and I don't matter, as we're not state or federal executive officers, legislators, or judges. However, it is spelled out in the constitution that both judges, executive officers, and legislators MUST uphold the constitution. This obviously means that they must judge the constitutionality of the law, and act accordingly.
Yes, they "must", but what happens when they don't? Pretty much nothing. Apparently, the definition of "must" isn't as certain as we would like it to be.
 
I have often wondered why those so strongly in favour of their Second Amendment "rights", seldom provide the complete words of the Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

for some reason, I see few strong advocates of zero regulation concerning firearms ever quoting the initial phrase. You know since "The constitution is not written in legalese and is plain as day", that bit about the "well-regulated militia" should be easy to understand - Right?

Some guy by the name of Joseph Story wrote a book a few years ago explaining the legal reasoning behind the Second Amendment, pgs 264-265 of A familiar exposition of the Constitution of the United States
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

That great 'originalist' Antonin Scalia of course doesn't acknowledge Mr Story's reasoning in his justification for his ruling in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”

Reading both gentlemen literally does provide food for thought. Justice Story's noting "It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace" would apparently indicate that the right's love of our modern defence establishment is somewhat unconstitutional and has the potential "to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." I seem to remember another politician warning us about the "military-industrial complex" more recently than Justice Story.

Justice Scalia quite openly states that the phrase "well-regulated militia" in his opinion doesn't really count. I guess because it doesn't fit well with his own thoughts on the matter, never mind what those guys back there in the early days thought. Then there is the other 'originalist' problem - if one were to read the Amendment as the writers saw it - easy right? plain as day? it would only apply to white, male property owners.

Another gentleman who appears to disagree with Antonin Scalia is Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist No. 29:

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".

Justice Scalia's "originalism", as noted by others, does have a few points where he doesn't really seem to care about real history and prefers his own take on the matter.
 
Yes, they "must", but what happens when they don't? Pretty much nothing. Apparently, the definition of "must" isn't as certain as we would like it to be.

No it certainly isn't.

However, they do have the responsibility and power to uphold the constitution.
 
lets try this another way:

legally, no law unconstitutional until a Federal court deems it to be. Until such day arrives, a law is the law of the land.

One can moan & whine all they like that a law unconstitutional, but until a Federal court says so.....one is breaking the law if they choose to violate such law.

that's our system. that's the way it is. anything else is anarchy.

Correct. However as I stated, a jury, IE you and me and ourcitizens citzens do have the right to determine the constitutionality of the law if and when it makes it to court. If you consider a law to be unconstitutional then it is your right to challenge it. Unfortunately, courts have ruled that unless you are directly affected by something you cannot bring it to court. Which means you have to risk your freedom. This is something I don't consider lightly. If a law is clearly unconstitutional I consider it my duty to challenge it. This day and age however one is required to pick their battles. The problem lies with the fact one must actually break the law in order to bring the matter to court. I think if a law is passed, one should be able to bring suit to a jury trial regardless of the effect of the law directly to their person.

The people who seem to think that regardless of your knowledge of law, that you should have known, is quite frankly foolish at best. A law, in order to be effective, must be widely known. One cannot expect a person in this country to know all the laws. To expect such is lunacy. There are hundred thousand laws and few if any know them all. The IRS code by itself, government itself does not know exactly how many laws, or regulations that are contained within. You could literaly kill someone with the paper it is written on. How can you expect someone who does not deal with it every day, let alone a professional who does, completely know and understand. You dont, and you cant. To say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, is an excuse for those that adjudicate the law in the first place. The statement seemingly removes the burden of the state or county or other entity of their inherent duty to post these laws such that they are known widely. If a city has an ordinace such as what DC does then it is incumbent that they post the law so that travelers passing though will be properly notified. Its similar to a no parking zone or a speed zone. If you wish to enforce an ordinace it must be posted plainly. Otherwise it is plain an simple entrapment. Not to mention evil.:)
 
Let me get this straight, he broke the law and WHY are we supposed to care about this?

if some gay was busted for violating an anti sodomy law I am sure you would be howling to the heavens. If some OWS as swipe got maced for failing to disburse by a cop you would be screaming FASCIST
 
This is one cop that would have asked for Lt Kims id...ran a check on him...inspected his vehicle...assured his weapons were secured...and if he checked out clean and in fact in the military....I would have looked in his face and said....Mr kim if you have stopped at walter reed or anywhere else in dc...you would be in violation of DC law...if you didnt stop your transporting your personal weapons legally....you didnt stop did you ??
 
Back
Top Bottom