PDA

View Full Version : Of what use is the 2nd Amendment without penalties?


bandook
08-06-2012, 11:54 AM
I was responding to another post and I think I have identified a (fatal?) flaw in the effort to get this resolved solely through the courts.

As long as there are no penalties associated with violating a person's right to bear arms, anti-gun legislatures/governments will just continue to re-word laws restricting gun rights and let them run the judicial chain.
(Exhibit A: City of Chicago)
(Exhibit B: Civil rights Act of 1866: No penalties for violations = no enforcement)

I'm not suggesting the judicial route is futile, but real relief will only come once congress provides for some free accommodation at the local penitentiary for violators. That will require an Act of Congress and a President to sign it into Law.

(Long game of Chess? :) )

Connor P Price
08-06-2012, 12:21 PM
Additional laws can often be prevented from going into effect through political efforts and preliminary injunctions. For examples see the current fight against sb249 or the recent mail order ammo ban that was prevented from ever going into effect. We will probably play that game forever.

What's important to recognize is that gun control is not a popular issue in most of the country any more. Shall issue carry is nearly nationwide, a dramatic change from only 8 states twenty something years ago. Politicians make laws that will get them reelected and in the years to come they will know that gun control laws will not accomplish that for them.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

Wiz-of-Awd
08-06-2012, 12:27 PM
"No penalties" for civil rights violations is the "out" created by the GOV.

I don't think for a minute, that the creation of our Constitution and BOR was without some sort of "out" or caveat for the GOV to pursue their goals.

A.W.D.

Drivedabizness
08-06-2012, 1:10 PM
There is no "out" for people who violate civil rights - even government "actors". Unfortunately, what it will take is a Federal Justice Dept that believes the 2A means what it says and that it is deserving of support.

Lip service aside, Obama, Holder, et al, don't really believe that the 2A enshrines rights - they believe it is a privilege to be managed/bestowed/curtailed as they see fit.

IANAL but I see the coming legal question in future lawsuits against recalcitrant government officials as this: Given the 2A enshrines a fundamental individual right, could a reasonable person reach a good faith conclusion that the challenged provision/policy/law (whatever) does not violate the 2A? Given the availability of instant background checks, I see the 10-day wait and 1 handgun per month limitation as two particularly egregious examples.

I see the Justice Department forcing cities/Counties (whatever - maybe even a State Legislature) to enter consent decrees whereby they agree to take no action that might impact 2A rights without prior consent of the Courts/Special Master. Given CA's record of non recognition of 2A rights, IMO it's going to take Federal imposition of remedies for us to get to a minimal level of compliance.

SilverTauron
08-06-2012, 2:36 PM
The Justice Department is the agency with the authority to enforce legal and,if necessary,martial enforcement of Federal law against recalitrant local authorities.Catch for us is that the Justice Department leadership changes every election,which means the political alignment regarding the RKBA flip flops every 8 years on the outside.To add, people don't rise to the office of the Attorney General by rocking the boat. Consequently,even if we had a maverick AG he'd only be in a position to enforce the RKBA for 8 years maximum,after which we get a piece of work like Eric Holder and the repeat offender states go back to the status quo.

The only permanent change which can be wrought in 'enemy territory' is through social exposure and judicial support.

yellowfin
08-06-2012, 6:10 PM
"No penalties" for civil rights violations is the "out" created by the GOV.

I don't think for a minute, that the creation of our Constitution and BOR was without some sort of "out" or caveat for the GOV to pursue their goals.

A.W.D.I honestly think the penalty clause for violation of BoR and Constitution was intended to be the 2nd Amendment, i.e. do to the future government what they had done to the prior one. People just lacked the stones to do it in 1934 when they should have and we're stuck with the horrendous consequences today of that inaction making future action almost impossible.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-06-2012, 6:30 PM
...Given CA's record of non recognition of 2A rights, IMO it's going to take Federal imposition of remedies for us to get to a minimal level of compliance.

This for sure.

A.W.D.

mag360
08-06-2012, 7:03 PM
I honestly think the penalty clause for violation of BoR and Constitution was intended to be the 2nd Amendment, i.e. do to the future government what they had done to the prior one. People just lacked the stones to do it in 1934 when they should have and we're stuck with the horrendous consequences today of that inaction making future action almost impossible.

so sad that was just barely 100 years since the founding fathers of this country all died.