AWB unconstitutional ?

[AK103K]

My feeling is that if you won't get off your ass, shut your mouth.

I agree 110%, and while I do vote, (early and often too, ) I just dont know that it really accomplishes much. Politicians are such lyin', back stabbin' SOB's.

One of the gun stores I frequent used to have a set of letters from one of our local rep's(he is no longer). One of the customers had written him about pending gun legislation asking that he vote against it. What he got back was a form letter basically saying the rep was pro guns and would look out for our rights and vote as the writer wished. As it was a form letter and the writer wanted a direct response, he wrote again, voicing his annoyance to the form letter. This time he got another form letter,(somebody screwed up ) only this ones content was 180* from the last one and the letter stated that the rep was again, 100% with him and would do all that was necessary to stop the gun crazies. Needless to say, the pair of letters in the case showed exactly what to expect from our rep's. They are not there for your interests, only their own.

Personally, I think what needs to be done is this, we need to break up the one party system we have today, and stop voting for them. As with anything, competition makes the world a better place. I know this is all a dream, but we need to go back to the Constitution and a Constitutional government that works within its boundary's. If we truly do have a voice by voting, we need to be more aggressive and ruthless in using it and gut the ones who are entrenched. We also need to get the word out on Jury Nullification. We, the people on the jury's are the power in the courts, not the judges. We can stop the BS by holding the kangaroo courts and unjust laws in contempt and not find the victims guilty. This says t all...."When a law curtails your liberties, there can be no justice under the law"

 

[Soybomb]

You know I'm torn on if a person has to vote to complain. If you don't like any of the candidates, which I think is very possible given how similar most candidates from both major parties are today, does it matter if you vote or not? If I feel like neither candidate is going to represent me well, should I vote for either just to say I voted?

I'm a voter, but I'm not sure how quick I would be to jump on those who are interested in politics but don't vote all that often.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

You know I'm torn on if a person has to vote to complain. If you don't like any of the candidates, which I think is very possible given how similar most candidates from both major parties are today, does it matter if you vote or not? If I feel like neither candidate is going to represent me well, should I vote for either just to say I voted?

It truly is choosing the lesser of two evils. It's also dependant on the sway of the nation at the time (right or left). It's a two party system, you have to vote for one or the other. I'd like it if someone came in out of the blue and stood for everything I/we believe in but they won't win. We are stuck in a rut that we can't get out of. What was that someone said about a revolution every 20 years to keep things right?

 

[antsi]

--quote----
It truly is choosing the lesser of two evils.
-----------

Life is like that. Every once in a while, things aren't quite perfect and one has to make a decision. Some people use this as an excuse for not voting, but I say if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils you will wind up with the greater of two evils.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I agree. I'm not saying you shouldn't vote, because if too many of us do that we'll end up with a Democrat and likely more anti-2A laws. It's just frustrating that even republicans these days are more like dems were 20 years ago.

 

[AK103K]

The problem is, everybody keeps voting the one Democrat/republican party system over and over. Nothing ever changes. Are gun owners retarded or what!? They ALL have passed anti gun legislation and will continue to do so. We need to get rid of the monopoly, we need to get rid of the incumbents and limit all their terms. We need to send the message that we're tired of their BS.

The lesser of two evils is STILL evil. Its just the evil of two lessers. We need a a government like ours was when it was first established. But thats never going to happen, there is to much money and power involved in to many places. They keep the masses occupied with trivial little issues and romp all over us where it really counts.

Hey, Penn State and Notre Dame are playing! Who's winning?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The correct answer is WHO CARES!

 

[allmons]

YES. ALL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Support for ANY gun law is foolish, counterproductive and illegal. Just as prohibition CREATED the mob and gang wars, gun laws guarantee that there will be military credible arms sold on the black market.

I will never accept that any gun law is legal. Throw out EVERY legislator until we get gun laws off the books.

 

[crunker]

I am a rather pro-gun, but I do think that we need background checks, and also I think that we need to make carrying a weapon with PROVEN intent to use it maliciously illegal.

The AWB was completely based on cosmetic features of guns, it didn't ban guns that were any better than ones that were allowed. Also, it violates man's basic preferance to obtain tools that make his work easier. Weapons make self-defense easier.

 

[Jim K]

Using a Congressional election as an example, even when the choice is between two evils, you can still play the system. If, for example, you have a R and a D, both anti-gun, vote for the R because (assuming the R wins) his is a vote for the R's to organize the House or Senate, and the R's are generally more friendly than the D's. The majority party organizes the Senate/House and so decides which bills are voted on and which are bottled up in committee.

Again, given two evils, another thing to consider is the Congressional seniority system. You can vote against the incumbent; if the new guy wins, he has zero seniority and will get all the attention of a spot on the carpet (maybe less).

If you have an anti-gunner and a pro-gunner, vote pro-gun, regardless of party. ("My grandfather voted D, my father voted D" is garbage; it is your future you want to look at, not your past.

If you have two pro-gun candidates (lucky you!) vote for the R, unless you really dislike him or really like the D. The reason is the same as above about organizing the house.

What to do about the liars and hypocrites who talk out of both sides of their mouths? One way to trap them is to write pretending to be extremely anti-gun. If the guy is two faced, his reply will reflect his real feelings. Then have someone else write from the pro-gun viewpoint. Compare the replies as was done in the case mentioned. The result can be very enlightening.

Sometimes the result can also be gratifying. I heard of one anti-gun state legislator who replied to an anti-gun letter with a rant about pawnshops selling guns to street gangs, using religious and racial slurs. His own party gave him the boot; the pro-gun people just sat back and smiled.

Jim

 

[TallPine]

I am a rather pro-gun, but I do think that we need background checks,

Well, you can think what you want, but I am convinced that the background check system will eventually be used to ban the civilian purchase of all guns - either by not funding the system, hammering gun retailers until they all go out of business, or gradually raising the bar until no one qualifies.

and also I think that we need to make carrying a weapon with PROVEN intent to use it maliciously illegal.

I'm not sure what state you live in, but in most states carrying a weapon without the explicit permission of the govt is illegal, regardless of your intent. Now what you mean to say might actually be to liberalize CCW laws so that no permit is required unless you have "evil intent" - though I'm not exactly sure how one proves whether or not evil intent exists, unless another serious crime is committed as well...?


Oh yeah, and in my opinion virtually all gun laws are unconstitutional

 

[Stauble]

We've had the Constitution being nudged out from under us since Income Tax came to be. Of course it's unconstitutional,

i think the 14th amendment was the 1st big nudge. the intent of the amendemant may not be so bad, but the manner in which it was passed is apalling and should be ruled unconstitutional. however, it is one of the few amendments the courts seem to uphold

 

[DBR]

Crunker:

Everyone thinks Vermont has no gun laws. Here is one:

§ 4003. Carrying dangerous weapons:
A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, or who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.

There are several others mostly related to long guns in vehicles and things that can be used for poaching.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Gunlaw started getting really bad in the 80s but the congress don't really care and I doubt those that say they do in congress are only doing it for the voters.

I think the president said it best about the bill of rights and the constitution.

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

They really could do with scraping the laws banning new machine guns coming into the country, noise supressors and only letting in hunting firearms be imported into the country and many of these laws seem more to keep lobbyest and their company's investment up.

 

[Robert Hairless]

gaweidert:

A person in New York State sued last year so he could own a fully automatic weapon. Said it was his constitutional right ot own one. He lost the suit. One of the judges statements was that the constitution does not guarantee individual rights. If this is true, he just shot down just about every ruling of the supreme court in the last 50 years.

Close but no cigar. My guess is that you're thinking of Bach v George E. Pataki, which included Elliot Spitzer (your next Governor, right?) as a defendant, and was decided by Judge Norman A. Mordue in September 2003. The case had nothing to do with "a fully automatic weapon." Bach planned to travel in New York and wanted a carry permit. New York State won't issue permits to those "without significant contacts to New York," so Bach sued for an injunction against denying him what he argued was his Second Amendment rights. It was in that context Judge Mordue reviewed the Supreme Court's decisions, decided that they did not support Bach, and that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms.

When you say that "he just shot down just about every ruling of the supreme court in the last 50 years" you must know something that Judge Mordue didn't. He's almost a neighbor of yours so you might want to call him and point out those Supreme Court rulings he missed: you live in Rochester and he lives in Syracuse. If you did that it would help everyone here a lot, and Judge Mordue himself would probably be grateful for the information. You can contact him through the Northern District of New York, in which he's a federal judge.

You might want to read his decision first though: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYNC/03-07878.PDF#search=%22judge%20norman%20mordue%20bach%22

 

[ProguninTN]

Constitution

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Um, not quite. It enumerates how rights, and states how the government is supposed to operate. It coincides with the Declaration of Inpendence which says "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed". In other words, you violate the Consitution, prepare for trouble.

Tyranny is to be met with Armed Resistance.

ProguninTN

 

[unspellable]

The value of a constitution

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Unfortunately, there is altogether too much truth in that statement. It is just a piece of paper (or parchment as the case may be) and any real value it may have depends upon a national culture that upholds what it says. Some where along the line we started losing that.

The old Soiviet Union had a wonderful written constitution that enumerated all manner of rights for the people. But they also had a culture and system that ignored that constitution.

 

[saltydog]

When it comes to electing Presidents, voting for a Demon-Crap, Re-puke-in, or not voting at all leads down the same path when it comes to guns. I will agree that voting different parties will differ alot when it comes to other issues. I've just been around to long to see all this

I perfer voting for pro-gun canidate's for the Congress and the Senate. Thats were it all starts and can be stopped there.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

It IS a piece if paper in the literal sense. It's just the original documentation of what we wanted our government NOT to be and what we believe. If the original burned up it would still be binding. It's not the piece of paper that protects our rights, it's the people's demand that our elected officials uphold it (thus the 2A).