[dugo]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Everyone crys that we need to get back to running the system the way it was intended.

Yet in that very same breath, they're applauding the cops usurping the supreme court and deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

Maybe I missed something and should go back and read the thread further, but I am not sure the theory is that these police are usurping the Supreme Court. Once a law has gone before the SCt, we have a different question.

Otherwise, your point is well-taken that the police should not be making up laws -- or ignoring them -- on their own. That is what the sheriff in New Orleans did after Katrina, isn't it?

I assume you support the actions of the several large male cops who beat up the old lady in N Orl, took her legally held .22 pistol, and left her defenseless in the middle of chaos, where the police would have little hope of protecting her even if they wanted to (which it appears they didn't) and looters, muggers and robbers pretty much had a free hand?

[dugo]

Originally Posted by xxlrx

"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."

The Constitution doesn't "give" us these rights; it simply acknowledges them. These natural rights, inherent to all men yearning to be free, are endowed by our creator.

These rights were secured for us by the sacrifices of our forefathers against the best efforts of tyrants. Tyrants are tireless in their efforts and it is the duty of all free men to guard against their usurpations.

I suppose you might doubt that our Creator gave you your health and the bounty on your supper table this evening--and that is your right as a free man, but the great ideals of this country, embodied by the form of government laid out in the Constitution and framed in the Declaration of Independence could not have come out of Godlessness.

Quote is from the Declaration, not the Constitution. Your point is valid, though, as to the Bill of Rights. Argument is that the Rights in the Bill are more specific applications of, and derived from, the more general rights mentioned in the Declaration, as you quote above.

Constitution doesn't actually say that, IIRC, though.

[dugo]

Originally Posted by xxlrx

Wrong again? Maybe, maybe not.

A simple Google search finds many instances of trespassing cases handled in jury trials.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-0...-deliberations

http://www.kcci.com/Jury-Reaches-Ver...z/-/index.html

Simple assault? Maybe they give jury trials for those too.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...sault-20121221

Are you a lawyer? At first I thought you were because you seemed so knowledgeable. I'm not a lawyer, so I thought I should do a little more research into the practical, day-to-day application of jury trials. According to legal.dictionary.com:

jury trial n. a trial of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the case is presented to a jury and the factual questions and the final judgment are determined by a jury. This is distinguished from a "court trial" in which the judge decides factual as well as legal questions, and makes the final judgment. While a jury trial is a constitutional right in most cases it does not apply to bankruptcy, maritime cases, small claims actions, or criminal matters not involving jail time.

So maybe you do have a point there regarding criminal matters not involving jail time.

Now that I feel much more knowledgeable about minor court proceedings and juries, I've only got one more thing to say on this matter. I don't think that this little disagreement is so much about "God-given" rights as it is about the existence of God himself. As the founding father's said, "We find these truths to be self-evident . . . that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The fact that the rights acknowledged in the Constitution are God-given seems self-evident to me, but apparently it isn't to you. If my instincts are correct, I'd sure like to know so that I can stop wasting my time with this line of discussion.

... and, I'd have to double-check, but I'll bet you can get some play in most systems if you request a Jury Trial on a significant constitutional issue -- police (state) depriving someone of constitutionally protected (civil) rights, for instance -- even if the underlying offense would not ordinarily trigger a right to Jury Trial in that particular state.

[dugo]

Originally Posted by ScottieG59

In my federal oath, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you.

[dugo]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

If IL passes a AWB, or a federal AWB were passed, yes.

You might consider getting out of IL. Barring that, you're stuck.

In the case of a Fed AWB, wouldn't somebody have to decide whether Federal law trumps state's rights on this issue, after a careful analysis of the specific wording of the federal statute and an analysis of how it applies under the specific facts of the incident in question, or (more complications) the comparative force and applicability of a presidential "declaration", to states' obligations of federal enforcement of un-legislated presidential mandates, or (in the former case) federal laws?

Or something academic and theoretical like that?

Point is, seems like you may be taking an overly simplistic approach. That has some use in the heat of battle, but you are not always in the middle of an incident. When blindly adhered to, and in the extreme, your principal can end up leading to stuff like the atrocities by Nazi soldiers who were "just following orders" during WWII.

So .. Where would you draw the line??

[dugo]

Originally Posted by Plasticman84

My Sheriff has said that he will not enforce an AWB. The Sheriff is my boss. Should I still be fired? What about my sheriff?

A lot of people might vote for him.

[series1811]

So specifically what people should police ask when there is a question as to what the Constitution means?

Or is it strictly, up to the individual police officer to decide in his own mind what that means ande act accordingly?

Or should they stop and ask the first person they see, and go with that interpretation?

What's the system here?

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by series1811

So specifically what people should police ask when there is a question as to what the Constitution means?

Or is it strictly, up to the individual police officer to decide in his own mind what that means ande act accordingly?

Or should they stop and ask the first person they see, and go with that interpretation?

What's the system here?

I'm a machinist.

If I decided that the tolerances were too tight and turned in work out of spec, I'd be questioned, ridiculed, and then fired.

.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by NMG26

I'm a machinist.

If I decided that the tolerances were too tight and turned in work out of spec, I'd be questioned, ridiculed, and then fired.

.

I remember reading a story in Chuck Yeager's biography about several pilot's being killed in a new jet that would suddenly go out of control in a certain manuever, that he was assigned to track down as it had performed fine during testing of the prototype. They finally traced it to a worker on the assembly line, who was installing a certain bolt head up (instead of head down as called for in the plans), because, the worker said, "everybody knows, bolts are supposed to be put in head up."

Yeager ended the story by writing, "I don't know if anyone ever told the man how many pilots he killed."

[Beware Owner]

Look, this is the way I see it, WE ARE THE PEOPLE! We are firemen, cops, EMT's, lawyers, gardeners, painters, students, sanitation workers, etc., WE ARE THE PEOPLE. This government has WAY overstepped it's boundary on our freedom and WE are standing up. Hope we can find a way to deal with the drones on U.S. soil issue. Call it what you will, but I stand with those Americans in which the Spirit of our Founding Fathers has awakened.

[solarborn]

With ya Bro!

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

Hope we can find a way to deal with the drones on U.S. soil issue.

And people say the 2ND shouldnt allow privately owned SAMs......

[railfancwb]

Originally Posted by DanaT

And people say the 2ND shouldnt allow privately owned SAMs......

Shooting down a drone is somewhat like shooting a bullet in flight. One is saved for the moment, but someone in the distance can continue to send bullets or drones until the target is hit.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Beware Owner]

Originally Posted by railfancwb

Shooting down a drone is somewhat like shooting a bullet in flight. One is saved for the moment, but someone in the distance can continue to send bullets or drones until the target is hit.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

One moment might be all it takes to survive.