Connecticut LEO's Refusing to Participate?

[A.J. Holst]

I'm not suggesting that we return to the exact same methods as I think, as a society, we can address such issues in a more humane fashion. However, I think the basic concepts should be followed.

 

CONCUR!!!

 

Not sure when it happened, but when we allowed guv'mint to fill the role  of our brother's keeper and legislate common-sense, the nation started down the slippery slope.

 

 

[RobertNashville]

Robert, I’m a realist. Maybe someday you will get your wish that everyone in the country can carry a gun, but being a realist I’m pretty sure the only way you or I will see it will be if our government collapses.

They only way you will legally be able to carry a gun is if the state you are stranding in allows it. Call me lazy and stupid if you like but that is the way it is and the way it is going to be.

We have legislation on the table right now to allow all citizens to carry. But according to you it can’t pass. So who being stupid and lazy is causing that?

Time for a nap.

 

I don't doubt that returning to what our constitution says; to actually limiting ALL government to that document would be a very difficult journey but in your prior statement you didn't say anything about it simply being "difficult"; you said "...I believe in States Rights and believe they trump the 2nd amendment".

 

I said and I say categorically that such a statement is absolutely wrong.  It's wrong, not because of being or not being a "realists"...not because it would be difficult to return to the Constitution...it's just plain wrong!  No "State" has the legal right to just ignore the U.S. Constitution nor any other rights enumerated in or protections guaranteed within the U.S. Constitution.

 

If a State could do so; if TN could legally ignore the second amendment protection of our right to keep and bear arms then it can also ignore protections about self-incrimination or being free of unreasonable search and seizure or any other basic, natural right we have. So I ask you; do you believe that the state of Tennessee can trump our right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?  Do you believe they can compel someone to offer testimony that would incriminate the person testifying?  Can they refuse to let a person being questioned by police the right to consult an attorney before answering questions?  I ask because if you truly believe that a state can ignore the second amendment I fail to see what would prevent them from ignoring the entire U.S. Constitution and everything in it.

 

As to the current legislation to "allow" us "Constitutional Carry' (legislation that will go absolutely nowhere) we shouldn't need "legislation" to allow us exercise a natural right, in this case, keep and bear arms...such legislation is as much an affront to liberty and freedom as it would be if we needed to pass legislation that allowed us to hold certain opinions.

[tnguy]

The constitution is just a piece of paper. It relies on people to give it any authority. Ideally everyone who swore to uphold it would do so. Inasmuch as they don't and inasmuch as we don't hold them to that oath, it has no power.

[tnguy]

If a State could do so; if TN could legally ignore the second amendment protection of our right to keep and bear arms then it can also ignore protections about self-incrimination or being free of unreasonable search and seizure or any other basic, natural right we have. So I ask you; do you believe that the state of Tennessee can trump our right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?  Do you believe they can compel someone to offer testimony that would incriminate the person testifying?  Can they refuse to let a person being questioned by police the right to consult an attorney before answering questions?  I ask because if you truly believe that a state can ignore the second amendment I fail to see what would prevent them from ignoring the entire U.S. Constitution and everything in it.

 

There's a question of whether they should or whether they legally could. The Constitution was originally written to control the federal government. The supremacy clause has since altered that somewhat but there's a reason why the TN constitution has its own version of the bill of rights. It's not redundant, it controls a different level of government.

[RobertNashville]

There's a question of whether they should or whether they legally could. The Constitution was originally written to control the federal government. The supremacy clause has since altered that somewhat but there's a reason why the TN constitution has its own version of the bill of rights. It's not redundant, it controls a different level of government.

 

So you are saying that the federal government police (FBI) cannot enter my home without a warrant or probable cause or legally force me to testify and incriminate myself but the the Tennessee Highway Patrol or TBI could?  Really?

 

Can Tennessee outlaw all religion, religious expression and make attending any sort of religious service illegal? Confiscate property with no remuneration?

The very concept that our "natural rights" only exist at the federal level is an oxymoron - our natural rights (or God-given rights as I would prefer) are ALWAYS our rights; if they aren't then we might as well just turn in our guns, bibles and pick up our little red books.

Edited March 12, 2014 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

Absolutely. Our natural rights are always with us. Whether under the US federal government, the Tennessee government, her majesty's government in the United Kingdom or the most oppressive Shariah state in the middle east.

 

So it's nice when the laws protect those rights but they don't always.

 

Tennessee has a constitution. It is similar to the US constitution and the constitution of many of the states around the US. The supremacy clause (and the 14th amendment) notwithstanding, the constitution was designed as a brake on the US federal government. If the US constitution applied directly Tennessee, what's the point of this?

 

http://www.tncrimlaw.com/law/constit/I.html

Edited March 12, 2014 by tnguy

[DaveTN]

No Robert, I don’t believe the state can take away any of the other rights you have listed. And I don’t think they could take away this right if the people weren’t all right with it.

I am absolutely sure I have a natural right or a “God Given” right to carry a gun. We see every day that there are people out there in our community that will kill us if we can’t defend ourselves. I am equally as sure that the state of Tennessee does not agree with my beliefs or assessments and is fine with creating laws that give these killers the upper hand. If you carry a loaded gun without their permission they will put up in jail.

Local Police, County Sheriff’s Departments, THP, and TBI are tasked with law enforcement and maintain public safety. Therefore, the Feds don’t have jack to say about who can carry and who can’t. The 2nd amendment hasn’t applied to the individual from the civil war to the Heller decision. We now have a right to keep arms but the state will control where we will bear them. (Until there is another ruling on exactly how much the state can limit the bearing of arms.) Don’t look for that to be happening anytime soon.

[RobertNashville]

Absolutely. Our natural rights are always with us. Whether under the US federal government, the Tennessee government, her majesty's government in the United Kingdom or the most oppressive Shariah state in the middle east.

 

So it's nice when the laws protect those rights but they don't always.

 

Tennessee has a constitution. It is similar to the US constitution and the constitution of many of the states around the US. The supremacy clause (and the 14th amendment) notwithstanding, the constitution was designed as a brake on the US federal government. If the US constitution applied directly Tennessee, what's the point of this?

 

http://www.tncrimlaw.com/law/constit/I.html

Sorry but your assertion is simply ridiculous as well as completely illogical.

 

No State has the legal authority to infringe on rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.  The state of Tennessee (nor any other State in the Union) cannot legally take away our rights to free speech...to practice (or not practice) q person's religion or to search our persons or our homes without a warrant or to refuse our right to a trial by jury or to take our property without remuneration. If you really believe that the State can then please offer up your documentation.

 

EDIT:  By the way, if States have the legal authority to pass laws that take away rights recognized in and specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution then why the hell is anyone here complaining about what's happening in Connecticut? Why do we even have these Connecticut threads???

 

If a "State" constitution trumps the U.S. Constitution then Connecticut has every right in the world to pass any firearm law it wishes right up to and including making ALL private ownership of firearms illegal and go door to door to search, without a warrant, any person or property to find the firearms and confiscate them and we ought to just shut up about it because it doesn't even affect us.

Edited March 13, 2014 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Sorry but your assertion is simply ridiculous as well as completely illogical.

 

No State has the legal authority to infringe on rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.  The state of Tennessee (nor any other State in the Union) cannot legally take away our rights to free speech...to practice (or not practice) q person's religion or to search our persons or our homes without a warrant or to refuse our right to a trial by jury or to take our property without remuneration. If you really believe that the State can then please offer up your documentation.

 

EDIT:  By the way, if States have the legal authority to pass laws that take away rights recognized in and specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution then why the hell is anyone here complaining about what's happening in Connecticut? Why do we even have these Connecticut threads???

 

If a "State" constitution trumps the U.S. Constitution then Connecticut has every right in the world to pass any firearm law it wishes right up to and including making ALL private ownership of firearms illegal and go door to door to search, without a warrant, any person or property to find the firearms and confiscate them and we ought to just shut up about it because it doesn't even affect us.

 

After the 14th Amendment, you are correct.  Before the 14th Amendment, which was passed without a legit quorum by the way, State's rights ruled over the the Bill of Rights as people were citizens of the states and not the fed.gov.

[RobertNashville]

After the 14th Amendment, you are correct.  Before the 14th Amendment, which was passed without a legit quorum by the way, State's rights ruled over the the Bill of Rights as people were citizens of the states and not the fed.gov.

The 14th may have codified the issue but I read nothing in the Constitution, the Federalists Papers or any history of the Constitution, or history/intent of its authors that supports that idea that States ever had the legal authority to infringe on rights enumerated and protected by the Constitution. Every original State ratified and agreed to abide by the Constitution (as has every State that has joined the union since the original signatories); they didn't just agree to abide by the parts they liked and ignore the parts they didn't like - if, in fact, they could do so then it would render the Constitution meaningless and irrelevant.

 

I don't dispute that the individual states were sovereign nor that they were treated and looked at far differently than they are today but that sovereignty did not eliminate their responsibility and legal obligation to abide by the Constitution that they freely ratified; a Constitution that both recognizes and protects our basic human rights.

Edited March 13, 2014 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

No State has the legal authority to infringe on rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.  The state of Tennessee (nor any other State in the Union) cannot legally take away our rights to free speech...to practice (or not practice) q person's religion or to search our persons or our homes without a warrant or to refuse our right to a trial by jury or to take our property without remuneration. If you really believe that the State can then please offer up your documentation.

 

 

Come on, Robert, you should know this stuff...

 

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Edited March 13, 2014 by tnguy

[tnguy]

Some more interesting reading.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021999469

[RobertNashville]

Come on, Robert, you should know this stuff...

To be clear, then, your position is that that the State of Connecticut (or any other State of the Union) can weaken, change, disregard or completely eliminate any of the rights enumerated in and protected by the U.S. Constitution because the U.S. Constitution has no power over the States; correct?

 

If so, then Connecticut, or Tennessee or any other State if it wanted to do so, has the legal authority and would not be violating the U.S. Constitution if it made all civilian ownership of firearms illegal and confiscated all firearms because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means nothing except to the federal government....do I have that right?

 

I suppose it also follows, then, that we all need to just stop talking about the second amendment as having any meaning or power at all except for when we are referring to federal legislation, rules and regulations.

 

If that isn't your position...if I don't have that right then please explain to me how I'm wrong because if, as your assert, the U.S. Constitution only limits what the central government can and cannot do then I don't see how anything Connecticut is doing could be considered "unconstitutional" or "wrong" on any level since CT is only doing what it has the legal authority to do.

Edited March 13, 2014 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

I thought that it was made pretty clear: federal trumps state otherwise the constitution is useless.

[tnguy]

OK. Be careful talking about what "is" because the 14th amendment and incorporation (20th century) do indeed cause the constitution to apply to the states currently as amazingly well described in at least the first link I put up there.

 

But Robert, you seem to be taking the stance of "I don't like reality therefore reality is wrong". The second amendment originally protected your rights (which, of course,  exist outside of the law) from the federal government. Your protection from the Tennessee government were protected, per the link above by the Tennessee constitution and specifically the clause

 

 

 

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

 

You may not like it, it may seem "wrong" to you but them's just the facts. I have no dog in this fight, I want my RKBA to be protected in all cases but that doesn't mean I will try to pretend the legal system is other than what it is or what it has been.

 

I'll also note that the wording that you are using implies that rights are granted by law. That is explicitly not the case.

 

As a secondary note, it appears the forum software shortened one of my links to make it appear that I was linking to the bill of rights which some of you out there may have skipped because you are familiar with it. In fact, my link it to an article about the incorporation of the Bill of Rights and has direct bearing on this discussion. Please don't make me repeat information which is given in that article.

Edited March 13, 2014 by tnguy

[tnguy]

This is Connecticut's version FWIW

 

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

[RobertNashville]

...

I'm not implying anything; we have our rights; and some of those rights are protected by law (well, at the federal level anyway and, if we are lucky, maybe at the State level); there is no misunderstanding on my part where our rights come from and if you think there is then you haven't been reading what I've written in this thread.

 

I guess we all need to stop this bellyaching about our "second amendment rights" since, per your opinion, the second amendment only applies at the federal level so if a State wants to make all civilian ownership of firearms illegal then they can do so (and someone should inform the Supreme Court since they've made a couple of real bonehead decisions in recent years; telling WDC and Chicago that they 2A applies to them!).

Likewise we all need to stop harping about what the CT legislature is doing since they are only doing what they have the legal authority to do; let's just hope Tennessee doesn't follow suit or all our guns may be rendered "illegal" for us to possess.

Edited March 13, 2014 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

Not going around again.

 

Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Edited March 13, 2014 by tnguy

[RobertNashville]

It's my opinion that the original intent of the founders, and certainly of Madison, was that the States would agree to abide by the Constitution and were expected to protect the same rights as those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. I submit that the reason why we have a 14th amendment was to settle this question but that the intent of the founders was that the rights of all people as identified in the Constitution would be protected regardless of which "State" they happened to be in at any given moment.

 

"The intention of the clause ("the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,") was to confer on the citizens of each State a general citizenship, and communicated all the privileges and immunities which a citizen of the same State would be entitled to under the same circumstances." Justice Joseph Story; Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 2 (1883)

 

If you want to maintain that the States believed they could and did act as if that they had no legal obligation to follow the U.S. Constitution that they ratified and promised to follow then I'll grant you that. However, everything I've ever read on the Constitution leads me to believe that it was intended by the founders that each State would abide by the Constitution including the basic rights enumerated in and protected by the Constitution. The 14th amendment simply codified that original original intent.

 

[tnguy]

Not to argue the point further since I think we're flogging a dead horse at this point but I found this page fairly interesting.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

 

If you follow the link at the bottom to the constitutional conflicts homepage, there are some other interesting unrelated items there.

[RobertNashville]

Not to argue the point further since I think we're flogging a dead horse at this point but I found this page fairly interesting.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

 

If you follow the link at the bottom to the constitutional conflicts homepage, there are some other interesting unrelated items there.

Thanks for the info...I'll read it!

 

Ultimately, our opinions really don't matter much I suppose; and certainly not as far as CT is concerned. ;)

Edited March 13, 2014 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

I kinda stopped digging when it started looking like this has been an argument that has been going on for a long time with many people who are a lot more learned about the facts. And it *is* irrelevant now anyway.

 

In many ways, the constitution is very flawed in being clear in its intentions but I'd hate to see what the lawyers would come up with in current times.

[Guest semiautots]

http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-sends-out-assault-weapon-letters/

[tnguy]

I think it's this one Obama is reading from:

 

http://thegreatdeceit.com/british-fabian-window

 

"REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART'S DESIRE,"

[tnguy]

Oops. I actually didn't watch the video. I was more just linking to the window. I'll have to check it out.