Culpeper,
You create a fantasy world. All your "argument" describes a world you believe in but does not actually exist. The world you imagine as you sit in your easy chair has no real relationship to the world that actually exists outside your front door. We can tell this because what actually happens here in the real world is unlike what you describe.
For example, you claim:
Culpeper said:
...contrary to most gun peoples perceptions the so-called supremacy clause does not make federal superior to the laws of the States,...
But in fact that does not describe how the Supremacy clause is actually applied in the real world to affect the lives and property of real people.
For an example of the Supremacy Clause in action and being applied to cause an actual effect in the real world see
Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947). In that case the Supreme Court ruled that the state courts of Rhode Island may not decline to hear a lawsuit brought under a federal statute. The Court in so ruling said (330 U, S. 386, at 389):
...For we cannot accept the basic premise on which the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that it has no more obligation to enforce a valid penal law of the United States than it has to enforce a penal law of another state or a foreign country. Such a broad assumption flies in the face of the fact that the States of the Union constitute a nation. It disregards the purpose and effect of Article VI, § 2 of the Constitution which provides: '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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.' ...
And a recent state court decision in a case much discussed on gun board the Oregon Supreme Court explicitly recognizes the correct application of the Supremacy Clause. In
Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required
under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The case did not substantively address the federal law issue. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):
...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...
In other words: Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun; but she can still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
So real life events demonstrate that your view of the Supremacy Clause in fantasy. You do not understand how this actually happen in real life.
Culpeper said:
...The answer does not lie in any court case....
And again you're demonstrably wrong. Since the founding of our nation (and before) the opinions of courts on matters of law have affected the lives and property or real people. Those opinions do not corresponded to your opinions as you've set them out here. Your opinions as set out here are divorced from the ways in which thing actually happen and things are actually done in real life in the real world.
Culpeper said:
The People are the final arbiters of the constitutionality of any congressional law or the unconstitutional application of the same and not the supreme Court....
To believe that is to be delusional. It is not how things have happened or how things have been done in real life in the real world since the founding of our nation. While it might be an interesting conceit it is no more real than Tolkien's Middle Earth or Oz.
To be sure, the People can exercise a form of ultimate authority through the political process by electing representatives who will enact laws which can, within constitutional limits, modify the effects of court decisions. This was illustrated not too long ago by the case of
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a
Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.
And if the manner in which courts apply the Constitution is sufficiently unsatisfactory to enough people, we can, through the political process, seek to amend the Constitution, as provided in the Constitution.
Your wishes that the world be as you've described can not make it so. Those of us who want to deal with real issues in the real world need to understand how things work, not how we wish they worked.
