Good news from all places...CALIFORNIA.
http://www.crpa.org/_e/page/1597/mr01_18_2011.htm
Arnold's ammo ban was found un-constitutional.
AB962 would have made it illegal to purchase handgun ammo from mail order or internet. Sellers would have to be licensed hand gun ammo sellers, maintain fingerprints, all personal info, brand, type, quantity, ect. ect. of all handgun ammo sold. They would have to submit this info to the local sheriff. Handgun ammo included magazines as well...go figure?
That was a close call. JRL
That is likely short-lived with Governor Moonbeam in office. Eventually they'll find a way to restrict ammo, guns, and tax you to breathe.
I had a great, yet simple idea that could save our country last night.
We need to pass a law that would require the dismissal of every gov. that signs an un-constitutional law into effect starting NOW. This is nothing more than what we should expect.
Basically they would be afraid to pass anything that could possibly be un-constitutional, for fear they would lose power. This would limit the number of laws being passed.
It really makes me mad, when our leaders are not held accountable for tromping on our rights given to us by our founders. They have large teams of lawyers that look at these laws before they sign them, they know exactly what they are doing.....we just need a way to hold them accountable for their actions.
It seems so obvious to me.
JRL
What about the legislatures that would pass such a bill (providing for the removal of the governor)? Aren't those the same bodies that would write these proposed unconstitutional bills for the governors to sign? Where's their accountability?
And who is it that decides the constitutionality of a law? That's the courts. Should we have all bills passed by the legislatures stop by the State Supreme Court to determine constitutionality before it gets to the governor so that the governor can make a fully informed decision about signing?
Our system is already set up with the necessary checks and balances. The legislature can propose laws, but can't make them outright until the governor has his say (they can make a law themselves with a vote to overide a veto). The governor can't make any laws not sent to him by the legislature. The courts can't make laws from whole cloth and only reviews and interprets those brought to them. The courts can invalidate the law. It's all a very complex game of rock-paper-scissors.
Unfortunately, each branch of government has been quite inventive in finding ways to circumvent these checks. For example, the executive branch writing into regulations things that would not pass in a legislative bill.
The legislature already has a method of removing an executive thought to be abusing one's office: impeachment.
I'm a simple man. I understand the checks and balances. However the only way that system works is through massive private spending. That is simply wrong that the citizens have to spend their private money constantly to prevent the people that swear to uphold the constitution from tearing it apart to solve social problems.
You have to know there is already enough court precedence for a team of legal scholars to determine if a law has a good chance at being up-held.
Everything is against the law, why do we need thousands of new laws each year? Does the public have enough money to fight each and every one? No, so only specific laws affecting special interest groups get passed through the scrutiny of the court system, the rest we put up with, thousands of new ones every year.
JRL
Are not all gun laws unconstitutional? Where does the Constitution state that felons, drug addicts, and the criminally insane can't have guns? Isn't the Constitution pretty clear that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege?
> Are not all gun laws unconstitutional? Where does the Constitution state that felons, drug addicts, and the criminally insane can't have guns? Isn't the Constitution pretty clear that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege?
In that case, let the criminals out of prison because they have the right to assemble, no?
Where does it say we have the right to incarcerate anyone? Is it possible for someone to relinquish some portion of their rights due to their own refusal to behave responsibly within society?
So, Merlin, why are you advocating that criminals and the insane should have guns?
>
> So, Merlin, why are you advocating that criminals and the insane should have guns?
you will have to forgive merlin. sometimes his brain gets in the way of logic.
> I had a great, yet simple idea that could save our country last night.
>
> We need to pass a law that would require the dismissal of every gov. that signs an un-constitutional law into effect starting NOW. This is nothing more than what we should expect.
>
> Basically they would be afraid to pass anything that could possibly be un-constitutional, for fear they would lose power. This would limit the number of laws being passed.
>
> It really makes me mad, when our leaders are not held accountable for tromping on our rights given to us by our founders. They have large teams of lawyers that look at these laws before they sign them, they know exactly what they are doing.....we just need a way to hold them accountable for their actions.
>
> It seems so obvious to me.
> JRL
A federal law to micromanage laws that can be passed at the state level? Maybe we should just have the federal government run everything.......? Of course most of the tea partiers advocate having more power at the state level and would rather have less interference at the federal level.
Like I said, I’m a simple man. I really only focus on my families rights and mine. I don’t give a hoot about the rights of the criminally insane, the murderers, and the evil people. I’ll let them worry about that themselves.
Lets start with the rights of honest hard working people. Once that's fixed, then we can hash out prisoner rights? JRL
Eapls
> Where does it say we have the right to incarcerate anyone? Is it possible for someone to relinquish some portion of their rights due to their own refusal to behave responsibly within society?
> So, Merlin, why are you advocating that criminals and the insane should have guns?
I don't think The Constitution point blank says that people can't be imprisoned for just cause, but it does say according to the SCOUS that all have the right to bear arms. It doesn't list exceptions. If people want a strict construction of the Constitution's Bill of Rights and especially the Second Amendment then they can't pick and choose which applications apply and which ones don't. If there is one exception than there can be others.
Eapls
It doesn't list exceptions in other amendments either.
So, again, why are you so keen on recognizing all rights to criminals and the insane?
And, again, is it possible for one to relinquish a portion of his or her rights due to one's demonstrated unwillingness to behave in a responsible manner within society?
LOL!
Hmmmm............so the Constitution is about logic? I don't think so.
Eapls
We are dealing here on this forum with many people who want to strictly interrupt the Constitution to it's plain meaning. They want all sorts of weapons to be legal without restrictions.
The Constitution clearly says that everyone, without exception, has the right to bear arms, and that in my mind would include many people who today are prevented from doing so for one reason or another. My point is if you want to strictly interpret the second Amendment to allow guns without restrictions to type and firepower, then logically you must also strictly interpret it to say that all people have the right to bear arms. You can't only strictly interpret when it suits you. You must interpret it consistently throughout the whole paragraph.
Now Snoop, I know you have a problem understanding legal concepts so don't feel compelled to respond. I know Evan knows my intent here.
Merlin
We are dealing here with many people who want to interrupt the constitution, period.
I understand your point, you are trying to take the argument you perceive is that of the other side of the issue and take it to an absurd end.
So rather than me, or anyone else accepting your flawed premise, how about you apply your own premise to other amendments and also answer my question.
Is it possible, or even valid for someone to relinquish some portion of their rights due to their own refusal to behave responsibly within society?
It is if you allow yourself to consider the motivations and life experiences of the writers. If you determine to not look beyond your own emotional responses and opinions, then it will never make sense to you.
SoundsTo Me Like........
.............we're trying to decide how far down the "slippery slope" we want to slide. 😉
New Constitutional Amendment needed...
Passing more laws is NOT the answer (never has been).
As was stated above somewhere, each year we get thousands of NEW LAWS, but nothing ever appears to IMPROVE very much (if at all, and things often seem to get worse).
I have said for years, that what we REALLY need is a NEW Amendment to the Constitution, that simply states:
For every new law passed, TWO existing laws must be repealed.
The day will eventually come, when we ONLY have those laws that we REALLY need (and MIGHT be able to enforce).
My 2-bits
Loyal
Hillel Said It Best
“That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others. All the rest is commentary"
