Georgia man arrested for weapons possession in Great Valley

[Marine Cpl]

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 allowed slavery in the original writing of the Constitution. Later, a judge, a group of Judges said nope.

Which is right and wrong.

When it was written it was legal. It was in the constitution. Thus constitutional. If it said that slavery was illegal but some state allowed it anyway, that would be wrong. And that’s what happening today with the 2A.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Marine Cpl]

My question first

?

 

[GOPerfect]

When it was written it was legal. It was in the constitution. Thus constitutional. If it said that slavery was illegal but some state allowed it anyway, that would be wrong. And that’s what happening today with the 2A.

Apples and Oranges.

So, the Judges ruled slavery to be wrong, so that makes it okay?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Look. The Oath we took tells us that we will swear to defend the constitution of the United States. That means that the individual cop or soldier has to determine what is constitutional or not on his own by reading it. It’s written in plain English for that very reason.

The Oath does not say to swear to protect it after litigation from a judge.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, the Judges ruled slavery to be wrong, so that makes it okay?

That makes it wrong. The constitution was supposed to be changed via a convention and a 2/3’s majority. Not by a judge.

But in this particular case, the constitution says that all men are created equal. So it contradicted itself if a slave was indeed considered a man.

 

[spat]

It makes no difference if you agree with that or not, follow their laws or face the consequences.

You could say the same thing about wearing the wrong color shirt in gang territory.

 

[Robin]

Lawyers, don't leave home without one. Whats' on your back?
Robin

 

[Mosinitis]

One can exercise his 2a rights without having LEO approval. Like everything else in life, you have to use common sense.

 

[RooftopKorean]

And not the one who enforce them? Why? They are the ones that make it happen.

I have to agree with Marine Cpl. on this one. It's like the SS officers saying I was only following orders.

Saying you are following orders when you knowingly violate someones constitutional rights and betray the oath that you took as a police officer is the biggest cop out; no pun intended.

I applaud you and thank you for your service as a law enforcement officer GOPerfect. You're entitled to your opinion, but to me your position is wrong.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Take North Carolina for example, in that State, you have a duty to inform an officer if you are carrying a gun. If you do not know that while traveling, you will get jammed up.

It makes no difference if you agree with that or not, follow their laws or face the consequences.

Itz twue, itz twue I tewl yu! From what I understand, the NC State troopers here get VERY upset if you don't tell them as soon as you are approached by them during a stop, and you may get jammed up. Locals are reportedly a bit easier going, but still...

I know that when I was stopped down here by local cops back in 2018 right after I moved here, that when he walked up and told me why he pulled me over, my first response was: "Officer, I just want to let you know that I have a concealed carry license, and that I am carrying". His response: Where are you carrying? Me: "In my..." His response: "OK, just leave it there and don't reach for it".

I gave him my NY DL, and NY CCW. He ran it and it came back clean. He let me off with a warning over my improper turn, thanked me for telling him about my carrying, and complimented me on my handgun collection listed on my permit. EZ PZ.

 

[GOPerfect]

I have to agree with Marine Cpl. on this one. It's like the SS officers saying I was only following orders.

Saying you are following orders when you knowingly violate someones constitutional rights and betray the oath that you took as a police officer is the biggest cop out; no pun intended.

I applaud you and thank you for your service as a law enforcement officer GOPerfect. You're entitled to your opinion, but to me your position is wrong.

What part of what I said is wrong? Do you thithink it is wrong that I want to ensure I am protected? Am I wrong and do you disagree that our political elite is out of control with their BS laws? That many Judges across the land are working outside the Constitution?

I will continue to research the laws of other States as I travel through them. If others do not, good for them for taking a stance. Fight the system! I love it

 

[Marine Cpl]

What part of what I said is wrong? Do you thithink it is wrong that I want to ensure I am protected? Am I wrong and do you disagree that our political elite is out of control with their BS laws? That many Judges across the land are working outside the Constitution?

I will continue to research the laws of other States as I travel through them. If others do not, good for them for taking a stance. Fight the system! I love it

Literally every response I gave you says that what you are saying is wrong. From the fact that without the police laws don’t hold weight and it’s indeed the cop’s fault for the rights violations rather than the citizen’s fault all the way down to the fact that cops have to interpret the constitution themselves without a judge’s intervention if they want to honor their oaths they swore to uphold.

So you will research laws from other states so that you can pick and choose which unconstitutional laws to follow. You will give up your right to remain silent in North Carolina at a car stop and declare that you have a gun because it is the law there but will carry at a place where you aren’t supposed to assuming there are no metal detectors there because it is unconstitutional. That’s picking and choosing which unconstitutional laws to follow. And if ever arrested at that place, you’ll blame yourself rather than the cop who unconstitutionally threw you in a cage for exercising your right.

No blame whatsoever on the cop who violated your rights.

 

[GOPerfect]

Literally every response I gave you says that what you are saying is wrong. From the fact that without the police laws don’t hold weight and it’s indeed the cop’s fault for the rights violations rather than the citizen’s fault all the way down to the fact that cops have to interpret the constitution themselves without a judge’s intervention if they want to honor their oaths they swore to uphold.

So you will research laws from other states so that you can pick and choose which unconstitutional laws to follow. You will give up your right to remain silent in North Carolina at a car stop and declare that you have a gun because it is the law there but will carry at a place where you aren’t supposed to assuming there are no metal detectors there because it is unconstitutional. That’s picking and choosing which unconstitutional laws to follow. And if ever arrested at that place, you’ll blame yourself rather than the cop who unconstitutionally threw you in a cage for exercising your right.

No blame whatsoever on the cop who violated your rights.

And.... Again, I live in a realistic world. The reality is simple, we are not as free as many think. We are not as free as we should be.

Knowing that are freedoms are not what they should be, I will do all I can to protect me and mine.

I do not feel sorry for this Georgia man. A quick search and he could have protected himself from far reaching laws.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So you are blaming him for not researching so that he doesn’t get arrested rather than the cop for not honoring his Oath. That’s what you are saying. You are dropping all responsibility from the cop.

I understand what you are saying. If you do not want to go to jail, research the laws. I get that. But what about the cop? Should he not honor his Oath so that the citizen doesn’t have to research out of fear of going to jail?

 

[GOPerfect]

So you are blaming him for not researching so that he doesn’t get arrested rather than the cop for not honoring his Oath. That’s what you are saying. You are dropping all responsibility from the cop.

I understand what you are saying. If you do not want to go to jail, research the laws. I get that. But what about the cop? Should he not honor his Oath so that the citizen doesn’t have to research out of fear of going to jail?

Again, I will repeat. It is the job and the responsibility of the Courts to determine the constitutionality of laws created by the elite group of politics. You constantly say that yo support the Constitution, if that were true, you would support that talks about the responsibility and duties of the Courts.

I support all of the Constitution, not just the parts I like. You do not.

Unlike you, I do not want the beat cop to decide what is Constitutional.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Again, I will repeat. It is the job and the responsibility of the Courts to determine the constitutionality of laws created by the elite group of politics. You constantly say that yo support the Constitution, if that were true, you would support that talks about the responsibility and duties of the Courts.

I support all of the Constitution, not just the parts I like. You do not.

Unlike you, I do not want the beat cop to decide what is Constitutional.

So all responsibility is taken away from the cops. Got it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You do realize that the constitution does not give judges the power to change laws based on politics right? There is a process for that requiring a Constitutional convention and a 2/3 majority.

Your argument is telling me that a judge can abolish handguns for example via a skewed interpretation based on politics and now it becomes constitutional and the cops have a duty to enforce it.

 

[spat]

Unlike you, I do not want the beat cop to decide what is Constitutional.

Some of us *do* think that responsiblity extends to every government official involved in enforcing an unconstitutional provision.

I would even go so far as to say everyone in government or even assisting government should be personally liable for violating someone's rights.

Yes, that means a lot of cops would refuse to enforce a lot of laws, because they would be personally on the hook if they were later declared unconstitutional.

That is not a bad thing. Any law that even *seems* unconstitutional shouldn't be enforced.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Like I said earlier, the Oath was created to give you an out so that you can defend the Constitution of the United States. It’s there so that you can refuse to enforce an illegal law. It’s there so that if a law is passed that makes a religion illegal to practice because some judge declared it is dangerous or unusual according to the new law passed, it wouldn’t be enforced thus rendering the illegal law invalid.

That’s why all government officials have to take it an Oath. From the cop down to the clerk.

But the Oath means nothing these days.

 

[GOPerfect]

And, again, I do not want some cop on the street to decide what does and what does not fall under the Constitution.

We have scholars that can't figure out all the meanings of the words and phrases; you want an uneducated cop deciding?

Look at the mess going on with this impeachment, their is little to no agreement on what is and what is not in the documents of our nation.

But yeah, let a cop figure it out on the side of the road. Allow a secretary to decide what is and what is not.

Foolish and ignorant.

 

[GOPerfect]

Some of us *do* think that responsiblity extends to every government official involved in enforcing an unconstitutional provision.

I would even go so far as to say everyone in government or even assisting government should be personally liable for violating someone's rights.

Yes, that means a lot of cops would refuse to enforce a lot of laws, because they would be personally on the hook if they were later declared unconstitutional.

That is not a bad thing. Any law that even *seems* unconstitutional shouldn't be enforced.

Seems to whom?

 

[Marine Cpl]

And, again, I do not want some cop on the street to decide what does and what does not fall under the Constitution.

We have scholars that can't figure out all the meanings of the words and phrases; you want an uneducated cop deciding?

Look at the mess going on with this impeachment, their is little to no agreement on what is and what is not in the documents of our nation.

But yeah, let a cop figure it out on the side of the road. Allow a secretary to decide what is and what is not.

Foolish and ignorant.

Then why is there even an Oath? For formalities, niceties, and to make things look good? Government officials are supposed to be hired to be competent.

Your argument that you do not want government officials to interpret the Constitution so that they can defend it renders the oath meaningless.

 

[spat]

Seems to whom?

Each individual being asked to participate in enforcement.

Yes, that means that some cops would enforce some laws that others wouldn't. That's obviously not ideal, but it's preferable to enforcing laws that aren't nearly universally recognized as constitutional.

That also means that they would have to accompany any fundamentally new law with a massive campaign to convince people it was constitutional if they want it enforced.

 

[GOPerfect]

When it comes to my rights, I do not want them decided by "common" people's.

I do not want their personal feelings and thoughts to come into play.

We do not have to like it, but we have a system, if a higher court says something is unconstitutional, we are stuck with that decision unless a higher court says different.

Again, that is fact and this is reality.

It makes no difference if you and I agree. This is our way of government, this is how the FF framed things. Unless all is changed, this is what we are stuck with.

 

[GOPerfect]

Each individual being asked to participate in enforcement.

Yes, that means that some cops would enforce some laws that others wouldn't. That's obviously not ideal, but it's preferable to enforcing laws that aren't nearly universally recognized as constitutional.

That also means that they would have to accompany any fundamentally new law with a massive campaign to convince people it was constitutional if they want it enforced.

This is a problem as well. Some enforcement and some cops not enforcing. That is worse at times.

 

[spat]

When it comes to my rights, I do not want them decided by "common" people's.

I do not want their personal feelings and thoughts to come into play.

We do not have to like it, but we have a system, if a higher court says something is unconstitutional, we are stuck with that decision unless a higher court says different.

Again, that is fact and this is reality.

It makes no difference if you and I agree. This is our way of government, this is how the FF framed things. Unless all is changed, this is what we are stuck with.

I would prefer that as many people as possible have a veto over things that could violate my rights.

 

[GOPerfect]

I would prefer that as many people as possible have a veto over things that could violate my rights.

That is not our form of governance.

 

[spat]

And, again, I do not want some cop on the street to decide what does and what does not fall under the Constitution.

We have scholars that can't figure out all the meanings of the words and phrases; you want an uneducated cop deciding?

Look at the mess going on with this impeachment, their is little to no agreement on what is and what is not in the documents of our nation.

But yeah, let a cop figure it out on the side of the road. Allow a secretary to decide what is and what is not.

Foolish and ignorant.

Only elected legislators can create new laws (i.e. potential infringements), but *everyone* involved can veto them.

What's the down side ?

Something that doesn't really infringe a right but seems like it might isn't getting enforced as much ?

 

[spat]

That is not our form of governance.

It's supposed to be.

The executive is part of the checks and balances. A law that the legislature passes and the courts uphold can still be invalidated by an executive that refuses to enforce it.

That was built into the system from the beginning.

 

[Marine Cpl]

When it comes to my rights, I do not want them decided by "common" people's.

I do not want their personal feelings and thoughts to come into play.

We do not have to like it, but we have a system, if a higher court says something is unconstitutional, we are stuck with that decision unless a higher court says different.

Again, that is fact and this is reality.

It makes no difference if you and I agree. This is our way of government, this is how the FF framed things. Unless all is changed, this is what we are stuck with.

Except personal feelings do not have to come in to play. It’s either constitutional or it’s not. You are either infringing on someone’s right to keep and bear arms or their First Amendment right to practice their religion or not.

It’s really that simple. The constitution is written in plain English. You are supposed to follow it whether you agree with it or not and if it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed than any infringement is an infringement.