I walked into a bar with a gun today...[W;108]

[tecoyah]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

Hmmm. Your analogy would work if the government wasn't the one stocking up on vehicles and weaponry, and avoiding it's own constitutional prohibitions against legislation. See, that's the problem, the very same people who want to disarm their citizen employers want to arm themselves heavily.

1) The Government has not shown signs of "Trying to Disarm" the citizenry.
2) The Government MUST "Stock up on Weaponry" in it's role of protection of the population.
3) The paranoia presented by the NRA worshippers is getting quite annoying to sane gun owners....and may lead to their fears becoming reality, which sucks for those of us that like guns but do not throw spittle when we type.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

There is a movement right now to call a state convention. They haven't decided what would be on the amendment list completely yet, but if they were smart judicial review would be stripped, the justices have already proven they can't be trusted with it.

200 years of precedent cannot be overturned without good reason. setting a torch to the legacy of John marshall, the greatest supreme court justice of all time and one of the men who helped to define what nation we would become, is something i can not understand.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

1) The Government has not shown signs of "Trying to Disarm" the citizenry.

You are completely wrong here. NFA, GCA, AWB of 1994, attempt to expand and reissue AWB of 1994(all based on cosmetics and capacity), the latest of trying to issue new handgun and "sniper rifle" bans.

2) The Government MUST "Stock up on Weaponry" in it's role of protection on population.

So, the USDA needs .40cal sub-machine guns and body armor? The FDA needs an assault squad? The IRS needs a SWAT team? I call BS on that

3) The paranoia presented by the NRA worshippers is getting quite annoying sane gun owners....and may lead to their fears becoming reality, which sucks for those of us that like guns but do not throw spittle when we type.

And now you accuse people of being paranoid. If you pay attention, a lot of people want their agencies to be militarized, and many were given regulatory powers that Congress doesn't even have.

 

[Goshin]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

1) The Government has not shown signs of "Trying to Disarm" the citizenry.
.

:wassat1:


Nancy Pelosi authored an "AWB" last year that would have effectively banned broad categories of firearms in the long term.

Washington DC and Chicago trying their best to maintain draconian anti-gun laws, despite SCOTUS rulings.

California... registration, followed by banning of ever-increasing categories of firearms...

No, they're not trying to disarm us... just ban almost everything that is a really effective weapon...

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

I am reasonably certain I said nothing about 1812 at any point in this thread...

then how small should it be? small enough that it could metaphorically be "drowned in a bathtub" if one wanted to?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

200 years of precedent cannot be overturned without good reason. setting a torch to the legacy of John marshall, the greatest supreme court justice of all time and one of the men who helped to define what nation we would become, is something i can not understand.

The good reason is the precedent didn't have a proper foundation. There is no better precedent, and had the court used this "power" appropriately we wouldn't have this discussion.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

The good reason is the precedent didn't have a proper foundation. There is no better precedent, and had the court used this "power" appropriately we wouldn't have this discussion.

you have to challenge the wisdom of one of the founding fathers: John marshall.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

you have to challenge the wisdom of one of the founding fathers: John marshall.

Fine with me, he didn't violate the constitution further with judicial review but others did. I wouldn't say that his decision was all that wise.

 

[tecoyah]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

You are completely wrong here. NFA, GCA, AWB of 1994, attempt to expand and reissue AWB of 1994(all based on cosmetics and capacity), the latest of trying to issue new handgun and "sniper rifle" bans.
So, the USDA needs .40cal sub-machine guns and body armor? The FDA needs an assault squad? The IRS needs a SWAT team? I call BS on that

And now you accuse people of being paranoid. If you pay attention, a lot of people want their agencies to be militarized, and many were given regulatory powers that Congress doesn't even have.

I often wonder why I bother to post in an attempt to sway rabid and reactionary thought, I suppose it is pointless.

Have fun stormin' the castle.

 

[Goshin]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

then how small should it be? small enough that it could metaphorically be "drowned in a bathtub" if one wanted to?

That would be a long conversation, covering a lot of ground.


Personally I am somewhat of a centrist or moderate on the subject, at least by my own estimation... I recognize that in a large and complex society we need more government and more law than was the case in the agrarian 19th century.

But given that governmental power tends to be abused, and tends to grow beyond all reason and beyond its original mandate against the will of much of the People, I think we must treat it like fire... keep it carefully contained and see that it does not grow beyond our control.


I realize that is a very general statement but covering the specifics would require considerable divergence from the topic of the thread.

 

[cpgrad08]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

you have to challenge the wisdom of one of the founding fathers: John marshall.

You can do that with wisdom from other founders.

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

You can do that with wisdom from other founders.

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

no big surprise that thomas jefferson objected to the opinion of someone who was appointed by his nemesis John Adams.

i side more often with john marshall than jefferson.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

Fine with me, he didn't violate the constitution further with judicial review but others did. I wouldn't say that his decision was all that wise.

His decision established the creation of Judicial review in theory and principle.

from his opinion from marbury v. madison.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

"No person,' says the Constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

Marbury v. Madison - 5 U.S. 137 (1803) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[Gardener]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

A pirate walks into a bar with a ship's steering-wheel attached to the front of his pants. The bartender says, "You know you got a ship's steering wheel stuck to the front of your pants?" The pirate says, "Arrr, it's drivin' me nuts."

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

no big surprise that thomas jefferson objected to the opinion of someone who was appointed by his nemesis John Adams.

i side more often with john marshall than jefferson.

Okay, you side with Marshall on this, which is fine as some people do. Here is the question, if an employee determines through a vague interpretation of your company's policy that they have authority to write and review policy by interpreting what is already written, are they correct? No, of course not, so we basically have a "check" to the legislative and executive that gave themselves more power through fiat, it's a problem.

 

[cpgrad08]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

no big surprise that thomas jefferson objected to the opinion of someone who was appointed by his nemesis John Adams.

i side more often with john marshall than jefferson.

So are you going against the wisdom of a founder then.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

His decision established the creation of Judicial review in theory and principle.

from his opinion from marbury v. madison.



Marbury v. Madison - 5 U.S. 137 (1803) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Key word is "in theory", of course principle followed because it wasn't properly challenged. Just the fact that there is a counter argument to this day against it shows it never left the theory stage.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

Here is my objection to that lets restrict freedom (just a bit) and see what happens notion. Crime is now dropping (few can say exactly why) so passing a law (even a no butterflies in bars law) can easily be said to be working if one then says "look, we passed X and crime in bars went down".

Thats true, but I think it would better to look at the amount of drunken brawls that end with a firearm being drawn as a means of escalation rather than deescalation to define what affect the law had. I'm not worried about people robbing bars during busy hours, I'd be more worried about a drunk guy with a gun getting some **** talked to him and deciding that waving his pistol around is a good idea. I'm very glad the law forbids the person to drink as a means to prevent a drunk guy making a bad decision with a gun, but if he never had a gun in the first place he obviously could not misuse it at all while drunk at a the bar.

Asking me to show what the government has NOT done, out of fear of armed revolt, is like asking someone to prove a negative... not really feasible.

Its not that unfeasible, just look at historical examples of times when people have taken arms against their own government. Its not as if events like the Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, Waco, or the Bundy stand-off didn't have warnings beforehand that things could turn violent. Before all of these events people talked about violence, there were protests, there was "small level" violence like targeting individual persons or blockading streets.

Still in each case the government didn't stop whatever it was doing. So I'm just asking you to look through history at a time when people took violent action or threatened violent action and the government backed down. Then take a moment after you find an example or two, if you can, and look as well at events like the Civil Rights movement and ask yourself was the violent or non-violent method more effective at changing government policy?

Totally missing the point...

No, he said robberies never occur in gun stores, presumably because lots of folks have guns, but criminals are smarter than that. I hope he doesn't think his home is safe when he leaves his gun home unsecured.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

So are you going against the wisdom of a founder then.

yes, by using the wisdom of another founder.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

Key word is "in theory", of course principle followed because it wasn't properly challenged. Just the fact that there is a counter argument to this day against it shows it never left the theory stage.

too bad none of the founding fathers tried to challenge Marshall.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

Okay, you side with Marshall on this, which is fine as some people do. Here is the question, if an employee determines through a vague interpretation of your company's policy that they have authority to write and review policy by interpreting what is already written, are they correct? No, of course not, so we basically have a "check" to the legislative and executive that gave themselves more power through fiat, it's a problem.

Thats not how government works, the analogy is dumb.

Its 200 years old so good luck in trying to overturn the basis of our entire legal system.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

So are you going against the wisdom of a founder then.

yes, by using the wisdom of another founder.

Don't you know that the founders all thought the same way! There were no disagreements between them, if Jefferson said it then everyone said it!

 

[cpgrad08]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

yes, by using the wisdom of another founder.

Good article on the subject.

The Humble Libertarian: Criticisms of Judicial Review

 

[cpgrad08]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

Don't you know that the founders all thought the same way! There were no disagreements between them, if Jefferson said it then everyone said it!

Don't be childish, we know the founders didn't agree with one another.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: I walked into a bar with a gun today...

Don't be childish, we know the founders didn't agree with one another.

Oh in that case I'm going to go with Hamilton over Jefferson any day.

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental....

[A]ccordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former....

[T]he courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments

You see its one of the role of the judges to determine if a law is in conflict with the Constitution and if determined that it is, always favor the Constitution over the other law. That is judicial review in a nutshell.