A Gun Thread not about Gun Control

corplinx · 1st February 2003, 12:10 AM

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030131-90736264.htm

The Washington Times here has a story on increased federal prosecution of gun crimes. Without trying to sound like one of those Clinton bashers, I was dissappointed that his justice department did not pursue these crimes. Especially while proposing even more laws to enforce. Good job Ashcroft.

shanek · 1st February 2003, 07:58 AM

I'm all for punishing people who use firearms to commit crimes, but how is this a Federal issue? Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power over crimes of this nature?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The Constitution specifies only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfieting.

Troll · 1st February 2003, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
I'm all for punishing people who use firearms to commit crimes, but how is this a Federal issue? Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power over crimes of this nature?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The Constitution specifies only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfieting.

Could it be they're talking about interstate gun crimes, trafficking, crosscountry shooting deaths, etc?

Richard G · 1st February 2003, 08:52 AM

Herein lies the problem. Everytime an atrocitiy with a gun happens, the gun control crowd screams for more laws and more legistlation, creating a burdon on the law abiding gun owners.

If they only took the time to look at the books, there are already hundreds of federal (and state) gun laws, restricting every concievable crime with a firearm. It falls to the judges, and the prosecuting atorney general to enforce these laws, and put away these people for life. That doesn't happen though, and it hardly ever happened with Clinton and Reno in office. They were so busy trying to outlaw guns, they didn't take the time to enforce the legistlation already on the books.

And I can gaurantee you, any "new" proposed gun control legistlation is always thinly disguised as a means to prevent some tragedy that has recently happened, and yet was covered by a federal or state law already on the books.

Almost forgot, the NRA is one of the biggest proponents of strictly enforcing exisitng federal and state firearms laws.

Bjorn · 1st February 2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
... how is this a Federal issue? Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power over crimes of this nature?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The Constitution specifies only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfieting.

From the "Marijuana Hero" thread (the article):

Quote:

But the judge in the Rosenthal case, Charles R. Breyer of United States District Court, did not allow Mr. Rosenthal to raise the California law as a defense since Mr. Rosenthal was indicted under federal law. Federal law does not permit marijuana cultivation for medicinal purposes.

Shanek, you could fill a library with what I don't know about US laws - but how does your statement and the above quote fit together?

1st February 2003, 10:24 AM

California has the 10-20-life thing.

If you brandish a firearm while committing a crime, automatic 10 year sentence.

If you discharge the firearm while committing a crime, automatic 20 year sentence.

If you hurt anyone: Life.

Naturally, there's still all of the murder stuff on top of that.

The problem is, the criminal element, being the dunces they typically are, have to be reminded regularly by public advertising campaigns, what the penalties are.

Advocate · 1st February 2003, 10:40 AM

What worries me about gun laws not being enforced is that the less they are enforced, the greater the cry to create new ones and then when they are finally all enforced our right to bear arms will be a right in name only as the legal contortions you will have to go through to get one will be prohibitive for most of the population. On my more cynical days I think that this is exactly the point of not enforcing the existing laws.

Troll · 1st February 2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Advocate
What worries me about gun laws not being enforced is that the less they are enforced, the greater the cry to create new ones and then when they are finally all enforced our right to bear arms will be a right in name only as the legal contortions you will have to go through to get one will be prohibitive for most of the population. On my more cynical days I think that this is exactly the point of not enforcing the existing laws.

Actually that is pretty scary. We keep adding new laws on top of existing laws and no one seems enticed to enforce existing laws as it is. The way things seem to go, when someone finally realizes this, they'll take infinitely longer trying to determine which laws to remove from the books in order to keep the right.

shanek · 1st February 2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
Shanek, you could fill a library with what I don't know about US laws - but how does your statement and the above quote fit together?

It's really very simple: Our leaders in Washington don't care the first thing about our sovereign rights and will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of them grabbing more power.

The Medical Marijuana issue is one of the more despicable examples of this. They're willing to just let sick people die because letting them have the medicine they need to survive would mean them giving up a bit of their power.

Troll · 1st February 2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek

It's really very simple: Our leaders in Washington don't care the first thing about our sovereign rights and will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of them grabbing more power.

The Medical Marijuana issue is one of the more despicable examples of this. They're willing to just let sick people die because letting them have the medicine they need to survive would mean them giving up a bit of their power.

It's also quite contradictory to the claims they make about wanting to give more power back to the state and local governments.

I can see and understand federal regulations pertaining to trafficking of drugs and marijuana as it pertains to imports, but that's about the limit of my vision of acceptance.

Richard G · 1st February 2003, 12:14 PM

Quote:

The problem is, the criminal element, being the dunces they typically are, have to be reminded regularly by public advertising campaigns, what the penalties are.

No, the problem is after recieving a mandatory sentence for a gun crime, the criminal is out on parole before the end of his sentence.

The next shooting or nutbag you see on the evening news, pay carefull attention. You'll see 90 percent of the time they will say he is a "prior offender", most often times bounced in and out of prison more than once.

This makes me madder than hell.

Advocate · 1st February 2003, 12:19 PM

I'm about as conservative as you get and a registered Republican, and I still think that our federal drug laws go way too far. I can understand criminalizing sales of controlled substances because they cross state lines, but to criminalize possession, especially of a plant with known medicinal properties strikes me as:

A. outside the scope of Constitutionally mandated powers
B. impossible to enforce with any degree of consistency
and C. harmful to the health of people for whom this could be a legitimate medicine approved by their state

Bjorn · 1st February 2003, 05:34 PM

Shanek

Quote:

It's really very simple: Our leaders in Washington don't care the first thing about our sovereign rights and will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of them grabbing more power.

... and Advocate

Quote:

A. outside the scope of Constitutionally mandated powers

You're agreeing that the Constitution gives no mandate for Federal laws regarding this, but the laws are still there and they are enforced, to say the least.

Forgive a newcomer-immigrant for asking silly questions, but this (the legality of federal laws in such an area) must at some time have been taken to the US surpreme court? I would appreciate to know what happened - a short comment and some references would be great.

I thought I moved to the prototype law-and-order country, legal rights being strongly protected, maybe even overdoing the rights of criminals sometimes (not that Norway was so different), but these facts make me wonder.

The Central Scrutinizer · 1st February 2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
Shanek
... and Advocate
You're agreeing that the Constitution gives no mandate for Federal laws regarding this, but the laws are still there and they are enforced, to say the least.

Forgive a newcomer-immigrant for asking silly questions, but this (the legality of federal laws in such an area) must at some time have been taken to the US surpreme court? I would appreciate to know what happened - a short comment and some references would be great.

I thought I moved to the prototype law-and-order country, legal rights being strongly protected, maybe even overdoing the rights of criminals sometimes (not that Norway was so different), but these facts make me wonder.

Bjorn, it's quite simple - The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. What everyone on this thread says, or what the politicians say is irrelevant. It's amazing how few people understand that simple concept.

For example, the 2nd ammendment gives members of well regulated militias the right to keep and bear arms. But certainly you have noticed that the right wing gun nut crowd keeps saying that it gives every citizen the right to bear arms. If that were true, then every new gun law would be thrown out on 2nd ammendment grounds. Since they aren't, it should give you a clue as to what the 2nd ammendment really means.

Bjorn · 1st February 2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Bjorn, it's quite simple - The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. What everyone on this thread says, or what the politicians say is irrelevant. It's amazing how few people understand that simple concept.

Thanks, I see your point (and only have to see 'In God We Trust' on currency to realize that you're right).

However, this time I was more looking for facts and cases - how is it that this Californian guy can be tried by federal laws for something that is legal in California, even if he never crossed the border to another state?

Is it some general agreement that drug offences are federal crimes? Like (Shanek mentioned) piracy in the open ocean?

Has such cases been tried in the US supreme court (from what you write, I guess they have)?

I'm just extremely curious here, as much as I'm extremely in favour of fair and understandable rules in whatever games we decide to participate in.

The Central Scrutinizer · 1st February 2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
Thanks, I see your point (and only have to see 'In God We Trust' on currency to realize that you're right).

However, this time I was more looking for facts and cases - how is it that this Californian guy can be tried by federal laws for something that is legal in California, even if he never crossed the border to another state?

Is it some general agreement that drug offences are federal crimes? Like (Shanek mentioned) piracy in the open ocean?

Has such cases been tried in the US supreme court (from what you write, I guess they have)?

I'm just extremely curious here, as much as I'm extremely in favour of fair and understandable rules in whatever games we decide to participate in.

I see your point. Obviously, there is some case law that allows Federal Laws to take precedence over State Laws, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could explain (Amateur Scientist and others).

corplinx · 1st February 2003, 07:12 PM

Shanek,

Instead of having 50 ATFs, we have one. This solves a lot of interstate issues. And yes, violating a federal gun law should be prosecuted.

shanek · 1st February 2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard G
No, the problem is after recieving a mandatory sentence for a gun crime, the criminal is out on parole before the end of his sentence.

Probably because they have to make room for all of those conviced of victimless "crimes."[/b][/quote]

shanek · 1st February 2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
For example, the 2nd ammendment gives members of well regulated militias the right to keep and bear arms.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms.

Quote:

But certainly you have noticed that the right wing gun nut crowd keeps saying that it gives every citizen the right to bear arms. If that were true, then every new gun law would be thrown out on 2nd ammendment grounds. Since they aren't, it should give you a clue as to what the 2nd ammendment really means.

Or how little politicians care what it really means.

shanek · 1st February 2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
And yes, violating a federal gun law should be prosecuted.

Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to make those laws in the first place?

Mahatma Kane Jeeves · 1st February 2003, 08:28 PM

Scrutinizer is completely right.

From: How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution

Quote:

Every federal court since 1939 to hear a Second Amendment case has upheld Miller, despite repeated challenges over the years by gun-rights advocates. Brief excerpts from a few of many such cases since Miller illustrate the clear consensus in the federal judiciary on the Second Amendment's meaning:

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.... The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia,'" the Supreme Court reiterated in 1980 (Lewis v. United States).

Bjorn · 1st February 2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
Thanks, I see your point (and only have to see 'In God We Trust' on currency to realize that you're right).

However, this time I was more looking for facts and cases - how is it that this Californian guy can be tried by federal laws for something that is legal in California, even if he never crossed the border to another state?

Is it some general agreement that drug offences are federal crimes? Like (Shanek mentioned) piracy in the open ocean?

Has such cases been tried in the US supreme court (from what you write, I guess they have)?

I'm just extremely curious here, as much as I'm extremely in favour of fair and understandable rules in whatever games we decide to participate in.

Shanek, any comments?

The Central Scrutinizer · 1st February 2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek

Uh, no, it doesn't. It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms.

"The people" who are members of a well regulated militia. Have you never read it??? I find that most right wing gun nuts have never actually read the 2nd ammendment. I'm not saying that you're a right wing gun nut, just that you have that trait in common with them.

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek

Or how little politicians care what it really means.

The level of care among politicains is irrelevant. Keep these 3 simple words in mind - "The Supreme Court". Repeat as needed.

corplinx · 2nd February 2003, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

"The people" who are members of a well regulated militia.

I love the ACLU reading of the second amendment. They make the militia fragment a condition and not an explanation. However, all _evidence_ of the founder's intent was that it was it was not conditional.

In other words, you are wrong. We have read it, we just understand it.

Wolverine · 2nd February 2003, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
But certainly you have noticed that the right wing gun nut crowd keeps saying that it gives every citizen the right to bear arms. If that were true, then every new gun law would be thrown out on 2nd ammendment grounds. Since they aren't, it should give you a clue as to what the 2nd ammendment really means.

“We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and
protects individual Americans.”

“There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘we the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere...”

-- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

Ed · 2nd February 2003, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I see your point. Obviously, there is some case law that allows Federal Laws to take precedence over State Laws, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could explain (Amateur Scientist and others).

Federal laws always trump state laws.

Mahatma Kane Jeeves · 2nd February 2003, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wolverine
-- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

That was an unusual ruling--pretty much the first to use the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court recently refused to hear an appeal, so who knows what the future will bring?

This CNN/FindLaw article has a good analysis of the case.

Quote:

Emerson challenged his indictment on a number of grounds, including the Second Amendment. The federal district court dismissed the indictment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, upholding the indictment, because it found that the government had advanced a compelling reason for overriding Emerson's Second Amendment rights.
...

Because the majority did not have to reach the Second Amendment question, its analysis technically constitutes what lawyers call dicta - that is, reasoning unnecessary to the disposition of a case. Nevertheless, the majority's opinion could have a substantial impact on the future of gun control in the United States because other courts may follow its reasoning.

Wolverine · 2nd February 2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
That was an unusual ruling--pretty much the first to use the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Um... no.

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846)

State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850)

Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856)

State v. Jumel, 13 La.An. 399, 400 (1858)

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859)

State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945)

State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952)

U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000)

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876)

State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891)

State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921)

Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871)

Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876)

State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472,473, 474 (1874)

Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879)

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 266 (1886)

People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636, 226 P. 914 (1924)

English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872)

State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875)

People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950)

Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975)

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897)

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990)

Mahatma Kane Jeeves · 2nd February 2003, 08:16 AM

Obviously a poor choice of words.

Wolverine · 2nd February 2003, 08:21 AM

The Central Scrutinizer · 2nd February 2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx

I love the ACLU reading of the second amendment. They make the militia fragment a condition and not an explanation. However, all _evidence_ of the founder's intent was that it was it was not conditional.

In other words, you are wrong. We have read it, we just understand it.

False. Re-read until you understand.

2nd February 2003, 11:25 AM

Most right-wingers I know can quote the 2nd amendment.

Federal laws always trump state laws.

But doesn't the Constution trump federal law?

and does not the Constution contain these two key amendments?

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The federal government, despite what we think or they think cannot fix every ill. It's role and powers are clearly outlined, it strays form time to time of course, but it contains the mechanisims to right itself. it is my hope the drug war ends when the Rosenthal case goes before the Supreme court.

and since i'm cutttin' pasten' anyway.

Quote:

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.

corplinx · 2nd February 2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

False. Re-read until you understand.

You remind me of a fundamentalist christian. You read something the way it is written, sorta. You read it the way you _want_ it to be read despite that all evidence and historical context say otherwise.

corplinx · 2nd February 2003, 12:13 PM

Wait stop, everybody stop. This is becoming another gun control thread slowly and I don't want that (yes, im guilty). All I wanted to point out was that the Ashcroft justice dept. is finally stepping up and prosecuting.

shanek · 2nd February 2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Scrutinizer is completely right.

From: How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

shanek · 2nd February 2003, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
"The people" who are members of a well regulated militia. Have you never read it???

Yes, I have read it, and it doesn't say "people who are members of a well-regulated militia." You're twisting the words.

shanek · 2nd February 2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Federal laws always trump state laws.

Do we really have to get into this again?

10th Amendment, people.

Richard G · 3rd February 2003, 08:20 AM

Damnit, here we go again. People running their mouths about something they are totally ignorant about. Yes, the 2nd amendment applies to the people, and it also applies to the militia. What is the militia? It is the PEOPLE. And it is clearly defined in the U.S. Federal Code, Title 10, Section 13. Here it is, and don't forget it next time eh?

If you live in the U.S., and are "able bodied", your in the militia whether you know it or not.

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

1st February 2003, 12:10 AM	#1
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	A Gun Thread not about Gun Control http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030131-90736264.htm The Washington Times here has a story on increased federal prosecution of gun crimes. Without trying to sound like one of those Clinton bashers, I was dissappointed that his justice department did not pursue these crimes. Especially while proposing even more laws to enforce. Good job Ashcroft.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

1st February 2003, 07:58 AM	#2
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	I'm all for punishing people who use firearms to commit crimes, but how is this a Federal issue? Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power over crimes of this nature? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The Constitution specifies only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfieting.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st February 2003, 08:23 AM	#3
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Quote: Originally posted by shanek I'm all for punishing people who use firearms to commit crimes, but how is this a Federal issue? Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power over crimes of this nature? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The Constitution specifies only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfieting. Could it be they're talking about interstate gun crimes, trafficking, crosscountry shooting deaths, etc?
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

1st February 2003, 08:52 AM	#4
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940	Herein lies the problem. Everytime an atrocitiy with a gun happens, the gun control crowd screams for more laws and more legistlation, creating a burdon on the law abiding gun owners. If they only took the time to look at the books, there are already hundreds of federal (and state) gun laws, restricting every concievable crime with a firearm. It falls to the judges, and the prosecuting atorney general to enforce these laws, and put away these people for life. That doesn't happen though, and it hardly ever happened with Clinton and Reno in office. They were so busy trying to outlaw guns, they didn't take the time to enforce the legistlation already on the books. And I can gaurantee you, any "new" proposed gun control legistlation is always thinly disguised as a means to prevent some tragedy that has recently happened, and yet was covered by a federal or state law already on the books. Almost forgot, the NRA is one of the biggest proponents of strictly enforcing exisitng federal and state firearms laws.
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940

1st February 2003, 10:08 AM	#5
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by shanek ... how is this a Federal issue? Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power over crimes of this nature? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The Constitution specifies only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfieting. From the "Marijuana Hero" thread (the article): Quote: But the judge in the Rosenthal case, Charles R. Breyer of United States District Court, did not allow Mr. Rosenthal to raise the California law as a defense since Mr. Rosenthal was indicted under federal law. Federal law does not permit marijuana cultivation for medicinal purposes. Shanek, you could fill a library with what I don't know about US laws - but how does your statement and the above quote fit together?
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

1st February 2003, 10:24 AM	#6
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	California has the 10-20-life thing. If you brandish a firearm while committing a crime, automatic 10 year sentence. If you discharge the firearm while committing a crime, automatic 20 year sentence. If you hurt anyone: Life. Naturally, there's still all of the murder stuff on top of that. The problem is, the criminal element, being the dunces they typically are, have to be reminded regularly by public advertising campaigns, what the penalties are.
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

1st February 2003, 10:40 AM	#7
Advocate Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 240	What worries me about gun laws not being enforced is that the less they are enforced, the greater the cry to create new ones and then when they are finally all enforced our right to bear arms will be a right in name only as the legal contortions you will have to go through to get one will be prohibitive for most of the population. On my more cynical days I think that this is exactly the point of not enforcing the existing laws.
Advocate Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 240	__________________ John Milton: "I only set the stage. You pull your own strings." - The Devils Advocate

1st February 2003, 11:32 AM	#8
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Quote: Originally posted by Advocate What worries me about gun laws not being enforced is that the less they are enforced, the greater the cry to create new ones and then when they are finally all enforced our right to bear arms will be a right in name only as the legal contortions you will have to go through to get one will be prohibitive for most of the population. On my more cynical days I think that this is exactly the point of not enforcing the existing laws. Actually that is pretty scary. We keep adding new laws on top of existing laws and no one seems enticed to enforce existing laws as it is. The way things seem to go, when someone finally realizes this, they'll take infinitely longer trying to determine which laws to remove from the books in order to keep the right.
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

1st February 2003, 12:00 PM	#9
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn Shanek, you could fill a library with what I don't know about US laws - but how does your statement and the above quote fit together? It's really very simple: Our leaders in Washington don't care the first thing about our sovereign rights and will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of them grabbing more power. The Medical Marijuana issue is one of the more despicable examples of this. They're willing to just let sick people die because letting them have the medicine they need to survive would mean them giving up a bit of their power.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st February 2003, 12:08 PM	#10
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Quote: Originally posted by shanek It's really very simple: Our leaders in Washington don't care the first thing about our sovereign rights and will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of them grabbing more power. The Medical Marijuana issue is one of the more despicable examples of this. They're willing to just let sick people die because letting them have the medicine they need to survive would mean them giving up a bit of their power. It's also quite contradictory to the claims they make about wanting to give more power back to the state and local governments. I can see and understand federal regulations pertaining to trafficking of drugs and marijuana as it pertains to imports, but that's about the limit of my vision of acceptance.
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

1st February 2003, 12:14 PM	#11
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940	Quote: The problem is, the criminal element, being the dunces they typically are, have to be reminded regularly by public advertising campaigns, what the penalties are. No, the problem is after recieving a mandatory sentence for a gun crime, the criminal is out on parole before the end of his sentence. The next shooting or nutbag you see on the evening news, pay carefull attention. You'll see 90 percent of the time they will say he is a "prior offender", most often times bounced in and out of prison more than once. This makes me madder than hell.
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940

1st February 2003, 12:19 PM	#12
Advocate Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 240	medical marijuana I'm about as conservative as you get and a registered Republican, and I still think that our federal drug laws go way too far. I can understand criminalizing sales of controlled substances because they cross state lines, but to criminalize possession, especially of a plant with known medicinal properties strikes me as: A. outside the scope of Constitutionally mandated powers B. impossible to enforce with any degree of consistency and C. harmful to the health of people for whom this could be a legitimate medicine approved by their state
Advocate Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 240	__________________ John Milton: "I only set the stage. You pull your own strings." - The Devils Advocate

1st February 2003, 05:34 PM	#13
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Shanek Quote: It's really very simple: Our leaders in Washington don't care the first thing about our sovereign rights and will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of them grabbing more power. ... and Advocate Quote: A. outside the scope of Constitutionally mandated powers You're agreeing that the Constitution gives no mandate for Federal laws regarding this, but the laws are still there and they are enforced, to say the least. Forgive a newcomer-immigrant for asking silly questions, but this (the legality of federal laws in such an area) must at some time have been taken to the US surpreme court? I would appreciate to know what happened - a short comment and some references would be great. I thought I moved to the prototype law-and-order country, legal rights being strongly protected, maybe even overdoing the rights of criminals sometimes (not that Norway was so different), but these facts make me wonder.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

1st February 2003, 06:37 PM	#14
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn Shanek ... and Advocate You're agreeing that the Constitution gives no mandate for Federal laws regarding this, but the laws are still there and they are enforced, to say the least. Forgive a newcomer-immigrant for asking silly questions, but this (the legality of federal laws in such an area) must at some time have been taken to the US surpreme court? I would appreciate to know what happened - a short comment and some references would be great. I thought I moved to the prototype law-and-order country, legal rights being strongly protected, maybe even overdoing the rights of criminals sometimes (not that Norway was so different), but these facts make me wonder. Bjorn, it's quite simple - The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. What everyone on this thread says, or what the politicians say is irrelevant. It's amazing how few people understand that simple concept. For example, the 2nd ammendment gives members of well regulated militias the right to keep and bear arms. But certainly you have noticed that the right wing gun nut crowd keeps saying that it gives every citizen the right to bear arms. If that were true, then every new gun law would be thrown out on 2nd ammendment grounds. Since they aren't, it should give you a clue as to what the 2nd ammendment really means.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

1st February 2003, 07:03 PM	#15
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer Bjorn, it's quite simple - The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. What everyone on this thread says, or what the politicians say is irrelevant. It's amazing how few people understand that simple concept. Thanks, I see your point (and only have to see 'In God We Trust' on currency to realize that you're right). However, this time I was more looking for facts and cases - how is it that this Californian guy can be tried by federal laws for something that is legal in California, even if he never crossed the border to another state? Is it some general agreement that drug offences are federal crimes? Like (Shanek mentioned) piracy in the open ocean? Has such cases been tried in the US supreme court (from what you write, I guess they have)? I'm just extremely curious here, as much as I'm extremely in favour of fair and understandable rules in whatever games we decide to participate in.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

1st February 2003, 07:09 PM	#16
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn Thanks, I see your point (and only have to see 'In God We Trust' on currency to realize that you're right). However, this time I was more looking for facts and cases - how is it that this Californian guy can be tried by federal laws for something that is legal in California, even if he never crossed the border to another state? Is it some general agreement that drug offences are federal crimes? Like (Shanek mentioned) piracy in the open ocean? Has such cases been tried in the US supreme court (from what you write, I guess they have)? I'm just extremely curious here, as much as I'm extremely in favour of fair and understandable rules in whatever games we decide to participate in. I see your point. Obviously, there is some case law that allows Federal Laws to take precedence over State Laws, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could explain (Amateur Scientist and others).
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

1st February 2003, 07:12 PM	#17
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Shanek, Instead of having 50 ATFs, we have one. This solves a lot of interstate issues. And yes, violating a federal gun law should be prosecuted.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

1st February 2003, 08:08 PM	#18
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Richard G No, the problem is after recieving a mandatory sentence for a gun crime, the criminal is out on parole before the end of his sentence. Probably because they have to make room for all of those conviced of victimless "crimes."[/b][/quote]
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st February 2003, 08:10 PM	#19
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer For example, the 2nd ammendment gives members of well regulated militias the right to keep and bear arms. Uh, no, it doesn't. It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. Quote: But certainly you have noticed that the right wing gun nut crowd keeps saying that it gives every citizen the right to bear arms. If that were true, then every new gun law would be thrown out on 2nd ammendment grounds. Since they aren't, it should give you a clue as to what the 2nd ammendment really means. Or how little politicians care what it really means.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st February 2003, 08:11 PM	#20
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by corplinx And yes, violating a federal gun law should be prosecuted. Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to make those laws in the first place?
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st February 2003, 08:28 PM	#21
Mahatma Kane Jeeves Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 829	Scrutinizer is completely right. From: How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution Quote: Every federal court since 1939 to hear a Second Amendment case has upheld Miller, despite repeated challenges over the years by gun-rights advocates. Brief excerpts from a few of many such cases since Miller illustrate the clear consensus in the federal judiciary on the Second Amendment's meaning: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States). "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.... The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia,'" the Supreme Court reiterated in 1980 (Lewis v. United States).
Mahatma Kane Jeeves Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 829

1st February 2003, 09:15 PM	#23
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Quote: Originally posted by shanek *Uh, no, it doesn't. It gives the people* the right to keep and bear arms.** "The people" who are members of a well regulated militia. Have you never read it??? I find that most right wing gun nuts have never actually read the 2nd ammendment. I'm not saying that you're a right wing gun nut, just that you have that trait in common with them. Quote: Originally posted by shanek *Or how little politicians care* what it really means.** The level of care among politicains is irrelevant. Keep these 3 simple words in mind - "The Supreme Court". Repeat as needed.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

2nd February 2003, 01:25 AM	#24
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer "The people" who are members of a well regulated militia. I love the ACLU reading of the second amendment. They make the militia fragment a condition and not an explanation. However, all _evidence_ of the founder's intent was that it was it was not conditional. In other words, you are wrong. We have read it, we just understand it.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

2nd February 2003, 04:20 AM	#25
Wolverine Grumpy Stinky Mustelid Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,690	Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer But certainly you have noticed that the right wing gun nut crowd keeps saying that it gives every citizen the right to bear arms. If that were true, then every new gun law would be thrown out on 2nd ammendment grounds. Since they aren't, it should give you a clue as to what the 2nd ammendment really means. “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.” “There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘we the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere...” -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

2nd February 2003, 06:58 AM	#26
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer I see your point. Obviously, there is some case law that allows Federal Laws to take precedence over State Laws, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could explain (Amateur Scientist and others). Federal laws always trump state laws.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

2nd February 2003, 07:36 AM	#27
Mahatma Kane Jeeves Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 829	Quote: Originally posted by Wolverine -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331 That was an unusual ruling--pretty much the first to use the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court recently refused to hear an appeal, so who knows what the future will bring? This CNN/FindLaw article has a good analysis of the case. Quote: Emerson challenged his indictment on a number of grounds, including the Second Amendment. The federal district court dismissed the indictment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, upholding the indictment, because it found that the government had advanced a compelling reason for overriding Emerson's Second Amendment rights. ... Because the majority did not have to reach the Second Amendment question, its analysis technically constitutes what lawyers call dicta - that is, reasoning unnecessary to the disposition of a case. Nevertheless, the majority's opinion could have a substantial impact on the future of gun control in the United States because other courts may follow its reasoning.
Mahatma Kane Jeeves Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 829

2nd February 2003, 08:05 AM	#28
Wolverine Grumpy Stinky Mustelid Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,690	Quote: Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves That was an unusual ruling--pretty much the first to use the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Um... no. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) State v. Jumel, 13 La.An. 399, 400 (1858) Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859) State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945) State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952) U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871) Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876) State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472,473, 474 (1874) Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879) Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 266 (1886) People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636, 226 P. 914 (1924) English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872) State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875) People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950) Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975) Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897) U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990)

2nd February 2003, 08:16 AM	#29
Mahatma Kane Jeeves Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 829	Obviously a poor choice of words.
Mahatma Kane Jeeves Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 829

2nd February 2003, 08:21 AM	#30
Wolverine Grumpy Stinky Mustelid Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,690

2nd February 2003, 09:46 AM	#31
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Quote: Originally posted by corplinx I love the ACLU reading of the second amendment. They make the militia fragment a condition and not an explanation. However, all _evidence_ of the founder's intent was that it was it was not conditional. In other words, you are wrong. We have read it, we just understand it. False. Re-read until you understand.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

2nd February 2003, 11:25 AM	#32
OdderMensch Guest Posts: n/a	Most right-wingers I know can quote the 2nd amendment. Federal laws always trump state laws. But doesn't the Constution trump federal law? and does not the Constution contain these two key amendments? Quote: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Quote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The federal government, despite what we think or they think cannot fix every ill. It's role and powers are clearly outlined, it strays form time to time of course, but it contains the mechanisims to right itself. it is my hope the drug war ends when the Rosenthal case goes before the Supreme court. and since i'm cutttin' pasten' anyway. Quote: 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.
OdderMensch Guest Posts: n/a

2nd February 2003, 12:09 PM	#33
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer False. Re-read until you understand. You remind me of a fundamentalist christian. You read something the way it is written, sorta. You read it the way you _want_ it to be read despite that all evidence and historical context say otherwise.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

2nd February 2003, 12:13 PM	#34
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Wait stop, everybody stop. This is becoming another gun control thread slowly and I don't want that (yes, im guilty). All I wanted to point out was that the Ashcroft justice dept. is finally stepping up and prosecuting.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

2nd February 2003, 03:15 PM	#35
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves Scrutinizer is completely right. From: How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

2nd February 2003, 03:16 PM	#36
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer "The people" who are members of a well regulated militia. Have you never read it??? Yes, I have read it, and it doesn't say "people who are members of a well-regulated militia." You're twisting the words.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.