If we're to believe her, it means we're to believe what was clearly understood yesterday, by serious visionaries who left a record of their intent, means something different today--at least to those who allow themselves to be manipulated because the only records they're interested in all have a backbeat. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column asks who we should trust when it comes to interpreting our rights. Hint: It ain't Capt. Nancy Dietz.
Share the link?
3 comments:
The no-private-transfers crowd. Every gun buyer and seller registered.
Commenters wisely point out that that's the next-to-last step.
Well, no wonder LEOs can swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and then pull on the jackboots without guilt, with leaders such as Dietz. Did the blurb say "30-year veteran"?
She shares the philosophy of Thomas Massengill, former superintendent of the Virginia State Police, now a shill for the congressional gun-grabber caucus. His agency shared instant criminal record check data with local police as soon as they were made, in violation of the law but not, apparently, of the Constitution...
I've wondered how people could pass the check, legally buy their gun -- and then be arrested before they made it out of the parking lot for being on another list. Misdemeanors, victimless statutory violations? Whatever the police SAY goes?
I got her "living document", right here.
(A repost of an Examiner comment - please feel free to point out wherever I might be incorrect and I will either clarify or learn from my mistakes.)
The "living document" line is hand-waving to disguise an illegal process: attempting to change the Constitution without following the already defined process for change via amendments.
The Declaration of Independence describes the heirarchy of legal power and authority which applies in the USA as such: The Creator gave untranferrable rights to each individual human; humans created government to protect those rights; government derives its powers SOLELY from the consent of the governed and has absolutely no legal power without that which was delegated to it via the US Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain language (compare with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers for contrast) and needs no interpretation; interpretation is for laws Congress passes, all which must have a directly-related delgated power from the Constitution in order to be recognized as "legal".
Existing US case law still recognizes that any government action outside of the legal framework and delegated powers provided to it by the Constitution is ILLEGAL and VOID - without any official say-so or further court decision. See commentary on Marbury vs Madison as well as the Norton vs Shelby County case.
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Furthermore, it is recognized by US case law that resisting an illegal government act, even if deadly force is successfully used, is both legal and proper. See John Bad Elk vs United States for the case of one person who resisted an illegal arrest which resulted in the attacker (the arresting cop) dying of his wounds suffered while acting in a criminal, yet "official", manner.
Thus, an answer to the question posed by the article, explained with reason and historical precident, to include legal recognition of it all, would be a resounding NO!
Post a Comment