Switch to full style
Let's talk about guns!
Post a reply

Voted in vs. legal

Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:40 am

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.

Re: Voted in vs. legal

Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:59 am

The problem here is that judges who rule on these things, don’t follow the law, they follow how they feel about guns.

Re: Voted in vs. legal

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.

I know, I know...the quote isn't found in the Constitution, blah blah blah. But clearly this was the philosophy of the authors of the Constitution, and clearly they codified that philosophy in the Bill of Rights. The courts do NOT have the final say, as much as the government would have us believe so. We the People have the ultimate say. We get the government we deserve tolerate. The power of nullification is real; we just have to use it.

Re: Voted in vs. legal

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.

So is there a link to what they voted in?

Re: Voted in vs. legal

Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:25 am

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boulder-colorado-unanimously-passes-ban-on-assault-weapons/

Re: Voted in vs. legal

Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:20 am

AR15L wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boulder-colorado-unanimously-passes-ban-on-assault-weapons/


Follow up. Hope.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019 ... -mass-non-

Re: Voted in vs. legal

Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:45 am

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.

Re: Voted in vs. legal

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.

:plusone:

A Constitutional Convention could open Pandora's box.

Re: Voted in vs. legal

Fri Aug 04, 2023 7:46 pm

Those conspiring to change, rather than obey, the constitution are being quite vigorous in trying to get a Cc convened:

"The Convention of States (COS) organization is wrapping up its “simulated convention,” a mock Article V Constitutional Convention comprised of current state legislators from all over the country. COS and those attending claim that “it's being conducted just as how things would happen if we were to get to get to an Article V convention.” However, this couldn’t be further from the truth."

Story and widget, here:

https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fas ... mo_id=7573

https://thenewamerican.com/convention-o ... ong-again/

"James Madison thought that to hold another amendments convention (because, don’t forget — that’s what the first one was supposed to be) would be worse than tragic, it would be “fatal.” In a letter to George Nicholas, Madison wrote:

Conditional amendments or a second general Convention will be fatal.

He added in that same letter the following dire prediction should an amendments convention be called:

The circumstances under which a second Convention composed even of wiser individuals, would meet, must extinguish every hope of an equal spirit of accomodation [sic]; and if it should happen to contain men, who secretly aimed at disunion, (and such I believe would be found from more than one State) the game would be as easy as it would be obvious, to insist on points popular in some parts, but known to be inadmissible in others of the Union."
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post a reply