Most Gun Control Laws Uconstitutional?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Most Gun Control Laws Uconstitutional?

Post by EdgaraJones on Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:57 pm

What gun grabbers do not yet realize is that there are three powerful reasons why their gun control laws will soon be null and void:

Reason #1) Many laws will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court already has a track record of striking down the several key gun control laws that have been put in place by cities or states.

For example, in District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a D.C. law that criminalized the possession of guns in the home for the purpose of self defense.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court further confirmed that the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" is guaranteed to individuals under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, any law that denies a citizen the right to keep and bear arms is simultaneously a denial of their Fourteenth Amendment rights... and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal in America.

These two landmark decisions, if correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court when challenges rise from recent gun restrictions in New York, Connecticut and elsewhere, will cause those laws to also be struck down as unconstitutional.

Reason #2) A Supreme Court decision would expose the illegitimacy of the court and reveal the outright criminality of the federal government
If, somehow, the U.S. Supreme Court finds these new state gun restrictions laws to be "constitutional," such a decision would be equivalent to a declaration that the court has openly abandoned its only real duty, which is to halt overreaching laws that violate the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

At this point, there would be widespread realization that the judiciary is an occupying enemy force acting in violation of their sworn oaths of office. If such a scenario unfolds, I theoretically predict, but do not condone, the likelihood that disgruntled individuals, having been stripped of their freedoms by a clearly illegal and unconstitutional judiciary, would take it upon themselves to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court justices who violated the Constitution as well as key high-level members of the federal government. Again, I'm not condoning this nor advocating it, because I do not believe violence is the appropriate path to a long-term solution in all this. However, I cannot deny the possibility of a decentralized, spontaneous armed response to the "long train of abuses" that liberty-loving Americans continue to suffer under today.

Any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify the Second Amendment would be seen by millions of Americans as nothing less than an outright declaration of war... and may spark an armed revolt against the tyranny. This may be precisely why DHS has purchased over 2 billion rounds of ammunition, many of which are hollow point rounds intended solely to cause maximum tissue damage against human targets on the streets of America.

Reason #3) A civil war may be underway before any of this makes it to the courts

During war, you are not bound by laws
During all of this, gun laws are irrelevant. If things degrade to a point where otherwise law-abiding citizens feel no choice but to pick up a rifle and start killing tyrants, then they are way past the point of politely following laws written on paper.

Furthermore, once the state declares you a "terrorist" -- which the federal government has seemingly already done with veterans and gun owners -- there is really no point in attempting to abide by any laws whatsoever because the government already claims to right to murder you without due process thanks to the NDAA and Obama's "kill lists" of Americans to assassinate.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039795_gun_control_Supreme_Court_Constitution.html#ixzz2QP2FPFCe

Source/More Here






A good chunk is true and a good chunk is speculation. But there are things in the constitution to address laws that, even though they appear as law, are not binding as law and hence not enforceable, which by definition, are laws that go against the constitution.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

_________________

Edgara Jones


2b7777fcf7909382dd2e99c1cda15019
avatar
EdgaraJones
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 96
Location : Mansfield, CT
Reputation : 0
Points : 2042
Registration date : 2013-01-12

http://www.swamp-ass.com

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum