Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:40 am
Summary:
Boulder’s anti-firearm ordinance violates multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution, and is in violation of at least two Colorado statutes.
Legal Question:
Whether a municipality can undermine the exercise of fundamental and unalienable rights and ignore the U.S. Constitution and controlling Supreme Court precedent?
Whether a municipality can ignore its state constitution and state law by infringing upon and criminalizing an individual’s unalienable and natural right to self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms?
Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:59 am
Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:06 am
Declaration of Independence wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:47 pm
AR15L wrote:Let's look at what happened in Boulder, CO.Summary:
Boulder’s anti-firearm ordinance violates multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution, and is in violation of at least two Colorado statutes.Legal Question:
Whether a municipality can undermine the exercise of fundamental and unalienable rights and ignore the U.S. Constitution and controlling Supreme Court precedent?
Whether a municipality can ignore its state constitution and state law by infringing upon and criminalizing an individual’s unalienable and natural right to self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms?
The last sentence posted here is the main question.
Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:25 am
Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:20 am
Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:45 am
Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:50 am
jukk0u wrote:The reasons for a Republic and not a Democracy, and for a Supreme Court, were to avoid a tyranny of the mob.
A change in the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention and a consensus decision by (majority) the States.
BTW: there has been a recent push (it's ongoing I think) to convene a Constitutional Convention. It is my opinion (shared by others far smarter than I) that this is probably unwise and should only be a desperate choice of last resort.
Once the convention is convened ALL parts of the Constitution can be opened up for amendment or erasure; not just the issue that spurred the CC to take place. It can have Unintended Consequences.
Fri Aug 04, 2023 7:46 pm