GUNSICK
6.5 Creedmoor
Don't you have a Father's Day to ruin for somebody today?
NY veteran facing 21 years for having standard Glock magazines
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
- Status
Don't you have a Father's Day to ruin for somebody today?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
He's no father. No woman ever bedded him. That's why he's here instead of with his kids or grand kids.
Last edited:
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
This putz is still around?
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):
"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect," "Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law", "Clearly, for a
secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws
and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would
be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never
existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
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 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d:
16AmJur2d., Sec. 97:
"The constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which
were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property." Bary v. United States - 273 US 128
If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the
duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
16AmJur2d.,Sec. 177:
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:
"The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law,
but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the
decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives
a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since
an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional
statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are
bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void
act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed,
in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot
repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full
force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law
is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not
be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of
the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States."
16AmJur2d.,Sec. 257:
Full text of "Constitutional Law - Your Ironclad Guarantee Of Freedom"
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens, [inhabitants] and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 13, 7, 2 L. Ed. 60, 2 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1803).-Jon Roland
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 (USC) makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
This is established law.The safe act is an unconstitutional law on its face.it is the duty of the American public to resist this bogus ""law "" as an act of tyranny against the constitution and the American people.
"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect," "Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law", "Clearly, for a
secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws
and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would
be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never
existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
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 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d:
16AmJur2d., Sec. 97:
"The constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which
were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property." Bary v. United States - 273 US 128
If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the
duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
16AmJur2d.,Sec. 177:
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:
"The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law,
but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the
decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives
a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since
an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional
statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are
bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void
act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed,
in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot
repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full
force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law
is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not
be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of
the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States."
16AmJur2d.,Sec. 257:
Full text of "Constitutional Law - Your Ironclad Guarantee Of Freedom"
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens, [inhabitants] and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 13, 7, 2 L. Ed. 60, 2 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1803).-Jon Roland
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 (USC) makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
This is established law.The safe act is an unconstitutional law on its face.it is the duty of the American public to resist this bogus ""law "" as an act of tyranny against the constitution and the American people.
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
oh yeah , fuck you andy
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Ill say it again because I feel it bears repeating:
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
I love people who quote case law chapter and verse and expect it to actually mean something in the Peoples Republic.
All those glorious words you offered as proof that the citizenry isn't bound by unconstitutional laws and that the Courts are not bound to enforce those laws aren't worth the bandwidth you wasted displaying them.
In case some of you have been "absent from reality" or simply haven't noticed, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the NY Court of Appeals have upheld Unsafe as constitutional AND SCOTUS has not been asked to review it. So....in the eyes of the gun grabbers, L.E., the D.A.'s Office, and State/Federal Courts of jurisdiction the law is constitutional.
Just because you're the smartest guy in the room doesn't mean you are correct in the eyes of those trying to screw you over.
When SCOTUS strikes Unsafe down (wishful thinking)...THEN I'll believe we've accomplished something. Until then owning, possessing, using, or getting caught with illegal firearms and/or magazine feeding devices will only buy you a stint in a jail cell and a criminal record.
Think I'm way off base ? Consider this simple example.
The Emperor spent 8.1 million tax dollars placing NYS advertisement signs along the NYS Thruway, major thoroughfares in Upstate NY, and the Long Island Expressway. The signs are illegal under some Federal Transportation Act due to size and message content. The Emperor KNEW they were illegal and he thumbed his nose at the Federal Government, put them up anyway, and now is dragging his hooves removing them under threat of funding loss from the Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
Still think a Court will openly defy the Emperors edict and refuse to adjudicate an Unsafe case ?
All those glorious words you offered as proof that the citizenry isn't bound by unconstitutional laws and that the Courts are not bound to enforce those laws aren't worth the bandwidth you wasted displaying them.
In case some of you have been "absent from reality" or simply haven't noticed, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the NY Court of Appeals have upheld Unsafe as constitutional AND SCOTUS has not been asked to review it. So....in the eyes of the gun grabbers, L.E., the D.A.'s Office, and State/Federal Courts of jurisdiction the law is constitutional.
Just because you're the smartest guy in the room doesn't mean you are correct in the eyes of those trying to screw you over.
When SCOTUS strikes Unsafe down (wishful thinking)...THEN I'll believe we've accomplished something. Until then owning, possessing, using, or getting caught with illegal firearms and/or magazine feeding devices will only buy you a stint in a jail cell and a criminal record.
Think I'm way off base ? Consider this simple example.
The Emperor spent 8.1 million tax dollars placing NYS advertisement signs along the NYS Thruway, major thoroughfares in Upstate NY, and the Long Island Expressway. The signs are illegal under some Federal Transportation Act due to size and message content. The Emperor KNEW they were illegal and he thumbed his nose at the Federal Government, put them up anyway, and now is dragging his hooves removing them under threat of funding loss from the Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
Still think a Court will openly defy the Emperors edict and refuse to adjudicate an Unsafe case ?
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
""AND SCOTUS has not been asked to review it""
and there it is.
it hasn't been to the US supreme court . it will never fucking stand . constitutional law is the supreme law of the land.
and there it is.
it hasn't been to the US supreme court . it will never fucking stand . constitutional law is the supreme law of the land.
In theory...
That line of thinking doesn't fly in NYS, MA, CA, and NJ.
These 4 States alone run a "cottage industry" in constitutional rights violation and guess what....they still enjoy widespread success.
The left wipe their asses with the Constitution, and RINO's provide them with ample copies in which to do so.
I understand where you're coming from and you are 100% correct. The simple fact remains that I've had a pistol permit and have owned firearms in this State since 1982. I've NEVER experienced a gun control law that was passed by either party struck down by ANY Court let alone SCOTUS that gave us back rights that Free America enjoys....NEVER. Sullivan Law, Permit fees (pole tax), Assault Weapon bans, magazine capacity restrictions, denial of concealed carry permits in certain counties for no good reason, suppressor legislation,.... the list goes on and on
You're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
My question is, why hasn't it? We throw money at these second amendment organizations for just this purpose, where the fuck are they!!!!!
Robin
Chuck 100% correct. Not only will they be disappointed BUT they will also be in jail. OF COURSE not ONE of these chest thumpers will actually challenge any of these laws and they have neither the balls or the money. Perhaps the "long hot summer" will result in riots, looting and killings that will force the feds to abrogate state laws that are unconstitutional but I'm not counting on it. For now, in one of the most free red states, awaiting my cans (tax stamps approved) with no big cities, I still believe it's 1860 and most people have not a clue.
This is coming ! (not your father's Oldsmobile any more)
This is coming ! (not your father's Oldsmobile any more)
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Fuck you, good riddance.
Robin
Robin
Excellent question.
Truth is there are fundraising opportunities for the NRA, SCOPE, NYSRPA, and others as long as there are laws on the books that rile up a segment of the "membership dues paying" citizenry.
Ask yourself this....when was the last time you saw a photograph of Tom King holding ANYTHING in his hands but a 2k minimum over/under shotgun ? I'll answer that for you.....how about never.
Locally, these organizations are run by FUDDS. They couldn't care less about modern sporting rifles, concealed carry permits, or standard capacity magazines because you "don't need 10 rounds to kill a deer, a waterfowl, or shoot trap/skeet/sporting clays" like the "civilized" gun owners. They take your money and give you NOTHING in return.
The NRA on the other hand need NYS as an example to the rest of the nation what COULD happen to THEM if it wasn't for the NRA. NYS is a pawn in a high dollar game of "pick pocketing" in which once again....you receive ZERO results for your time, effort, and hard earned capital.
Lastly, with the SOLE exception of Steve McLaughlin in the NYS Assembly, the RINO's who call themselves Republicans use Unsafe as a manner in which to "fleece" votes from the populace without ever having to get their individual and collective hands dirty overturning the legislation. They ALL want repeal...they KNOW it will NEVER happen, but they continue to lie to the public with regards to their legislative efforts. Hell....they FUND the law at every budget cycle them openly LIE about it to whomever will listen.
It's high time people started realizing the shell game that gets played with their rights and their money.
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
Why is this out of state clown posting here?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
who?
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Probably got kicked out of his home states forums. perhaps if he didn't insult people as if he were somebody important his opinions might have some value.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
""You're setting yourself up for disappointment.""
Probably right. I have taken my oath 3 times . I think I have legitimate bitch to expect the government to follow the constitution and not make up a new one and expect me to follow it without question.
Probably right. I have taken my oath 3 times . I think I have legitimate bitch to expect the government to follow the constitution and not make up a new one and expect me to follow it without question.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Exactly what the hell have you done about safe or the original OP? Nobody's claiming they have or will do anything specific in this thread other than not vote guilty for any poor scmuck charged with a safe act violation.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
He wants you admit on a public forum that you have broken the law.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Oh hell...Andy get outta here. The adults are talking.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
When a mugger holds a gun to your head, are you a pussy for handing over your wallet ? Are you a "chest thumper" for saying you would defend yourself if you could ?
If you hear about someone who tries, and hes killed for not cooperating with the criminal, are you going to get on the Internet and post about how "he should have known better", and "got what he deserved for resisting" ?
In case you don't get it, NYS is the criminal and gun owners are the victims here.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
"" Not only will they be disappointed BUT they will also be in jail. OF COURSE not ONE of these chest thumpers will actually challenge any of these laws and they have neither the balls or the money."" -King George
I thought king George said the same thing
I thought king George said the same thing
Well it just gets better.1. As I said, NONE of you will become the heroic guy standing in the dock for challenging the SAFE act
2. George III never said that.
3. Scat errr spat continues to pretend he's Zorro but I'm quite sure Basil would have skewered him like the marshmellow he is.
4. We don't need forums in my state for whiners about gun laws because (drum roll) we have none ! (my cans to fit all my "assault rifles" will arrive next week, also been looking at a very nice Swede 6.5x55 BAR, not a semi)
Chest thumpers who have neither the balls to take on your Fascist state or the courage to move to freedom (as I did in 2000)
Meanwhile the whole thread has turned into a 5th grade playground fight with a bunch of pseudo tough guys trying to put down a truth teller while hiding behind Mom's skirts (aka the internet)
GUNSICK
6.5 Creedmoor
But I did get to fuck your mom and you still owe me $10 grand. On top of that you'll be dead soon, so I got that going for me too.
- Status