This is why we need national reciprocity (arrest of person from out of state w/pistol)
- Thread starter camper4lyfe
- Start date
Not the police. That much has been made abundantly clear to me.
spat
.950 JDJ
Each and every person who is tasked with enforcing the governments will.
Basically, nobody can make up laws on their own, but *every individual* in the the entire chain of enforcement has a veto.
The judicial branch
The judicial branch interprets laws and determines if a law is unconstitutional. The judicial branch includes the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
The judicial branch interprets laws and determines if a law is unconstitutional. The judicial branch includes the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Up until this case, police would stop the citizen from filming them.
Should we allow the Police to do this again and say the hell with the court ruling.
This is exactly what you are saying.
Even without this case, I knew what the First Amendment was about, it took the court to clear up all doubt.
Up until this case, police would stop the citizen from filming them.
Should we allow the Police to do this again and say the hell with the court ruling.
This is exactly what you are saying.
Even without this case, I knew what the First Amendment was about, it took the court to clear up all doubt.
spat
.950 JDJ
Nope, the cops were trying to *make* laws when they would stop people from filming them.
That is expressly forbidden.
The only power I am suggesting is the power *not* to enforce a law.
So, here is a question. Is there *any* law you think they should refuse to enforce if the courts say it's GTG ?
If there is *any* hypothetical law you think should be refused under those circumstances then this discussion is over. It's just a question of how egregious it has to get.
I am saying that you have a personal responsibility for *all* of your actions. You *cannot* absolve yourself of that responsibility by claiming you were "just following orders". This is a well settled principle.
I am responsible for all of my actions. As for your question, I am not sure I can answer it.
Granted, you did not answer my question, just to be fair....
When does personal responsibility come into play? This is a real question.
I have a badge, I can carry in any State in the Union. Prior to traveling to another State, I read their laws to ensure I am compliant. I think it was recently changed, but when entering NJ, hollow point ammo was not allowed. I did not carry those.
In NC, all gun owners have a duty to inform officers that they are armed if any contact is made. I ensure compliance.
I am all for reciprocity, it will never happen. Ever. Huge fan of it. Hell, I am against all permits, and background checks.
I wonder how many here on this forum back these checks.
I think ex felons should be allowed to Keep and Bear arms, how many are against that?
This is why we need the courts to sort this out and not the Police.
I know officers, (NOT my friends) that do not believe anyone in public should carry a gun. You want them to decide?
@GOPerfect, you are between a rock and a hard place.
Oh, I am the rock.
Too often though, people do not think about the ramifications if they actually get what they think they want.
I try to think down the road.
I do wonder though, how many gun owners are okay with background checks to buy a gun???
spat
.950 JDJ
I did answer your question.
You wanted to know who's call it was if a law was constitutional or not. I said *everyone* with a hand in enforcing it has that responsibility.
Also, all 3 branches can strike down an unconstitutional law.
The legislature can repeal it (or just not pass it to begin with).
The Judiciary can forbid it's enforcement (it remains on the books, even if SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional).
The executive can veto it. That includes *every member* of the executive branch with a hand in enforcing it, not just the president (or governor).
So, basically *you* have veto
power over every law you are tasked with enforcing.
Just like every DA, and every clerk responsible for filing every paper necessary to enforce it.
I'm pretty much not okay with anything short of private ownership of thermonuclear ICBMs. With MIRV warheads. 'Cause there are many blue cities but I only have room for the one silo.
spat
.950 JDJ
Background checks are every bit an infringement.
96coal449
.308 Win
The problem lies within the sheep and the liberals.
Division in the supreme laws of the land.
The organic constitution.
Division in the supreme laws of the land.
The organic constitution.
I've heard that one a few times, before.