Kolbe en banc decision

teratos · Feb 23, 2017

Brooklyn said:
Then the executive is at liberty to ignore the decision. Let the Marshalls service get to work

The court does not have and never did have a monopoly on interpretation.. let the games begin.

The People can ignore it, too. We do not have to follow Unconstitutional laws.

kcbrown · Feb 23, 2017

Brooklyn said:
Then the executive is at liberty to ignore the decision. Let the Marshalls service get to work

Why would the executive ignore a decision that sided with the government? :confused:

The court does not have and never did have a monopoly on interpretation.. let the games begin.

That has always been the case. The reason the executive doesn't simply summarily ignore all the contrary decisions by the courts is for the purpose of upholding the appearance of adherence to the Constitution. But it is rare that the executive has to ignore such decisions in the first place, since they are comparatively rare.

But in any case, the problem we're talking about here is when the courts and the other branches of government agree with each other in contravention of the Constitution and the principles behind it.

The decision in Kolbe wasn't merely about the ability of the state government to arbitrarily restrict firearms. It's about the ability of any government, including the federal government, to arbitrarily restrict firearms.

Put another way, it is idiocy to give the government the final say in what the citizenry can and cannot do. We lost the fight for liberty the moment the Constitution was ratified, because the Constitution does not place the final check on law in the hands of the people (more specifically, in the hands of a minority vote. You cannot protect the rights of minority populations by insisting that a majority agree with those rights. That way lies tyranny of the majority) -- it places it in the hands of the courts.

Only a minority check against the courts, directly codified into the Constitution, will remedy this in a peaceful manner (and then only as long as the government is willing to maintain the appearance of adhering to the Constitution -- once that goes out the window, the only remaining option is armed revolt).

kcbrown · Feb 23, 2017

teratos said:
The People can ignore it, too. We do not have to follow Unconstitutional laws.

Governments say otherwise while pointing a bunch of guns at our heads. Failing a change to the Constitution, our only options will be to acquiesce or to forcefully resist.

teratos · Feb 23, 2017

kcbrown said:
Governments say otherwise while pointing a bunch of guns at our heads. Failing a change to the Constitution, our only options will be to acquiesce or to forcefully resist.

It may come to that. I hope we never break the glass on the 2A.

Justemily · Feb 23, 2017

This (and FSA of 2013) is the straw that will have my retirement income taxed in another state, guaranteed, it pisses me off that Md is getting my tax dollars now, but not for long.

Mark75H · Feb 23, 2017

kcbrown said:
Only a minority check against the courts, directly codified into the Constitution, will remedy this in a peaceful manner (and then only as long as the government is willing to maintain the appearance of adhering to the Constitution -- once that goes out the window, the only remaining option is armed revolt).

I thought the Constitution did give directly Congress the power to limit what the courts could rule on.

fightinbluhen51 · Feb 23, 2017

Mark75H said:
I thought the Constitution did give directly Congress the power to limit what the courts could rule on.

Congress could disband all district and circuit courts tomorrow if it wanted too.

fidelity · Feb 23, 2017

Mike OTDP said:
Life tenure...but even more, pull the perks and move the courtrooms. Can anyone deny that if the 9th Circuit courthouse was physically removed from San Francisco to somewhere in the middle of the Mojave Desert, we might see that Circuit produce reasonable decisions?

And those courthouses, including that of the Supreme Court, should be nondescript buildings. The judiciary is supposed to be independent, but also the juniormost branch of government. Congress, not the courts, is seniormost. Time for the judiciary to be put in its place.

Can't happen soon enough.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Brooklyn · Feb 23, 2017

kcbrown said:
Governments say otherwise while pointing a bunch of guns at our heads. Failing a change to the Constitution, our only options will be to acquiesce or to forcefully resist.

Wrong again.

Modern war is an economic phenomenon as much as a military one..

Most will be along for the ride and will have no clue until it's to late

Brooklyn · Feb 23, 2017

teratos said:
It may come to that. I hope we never break the glass on the 2A.

How to fight, and when to fight are much more amorphous than in the 18th century... Good thing too...

Mark75H · Feb 23, 2017

Brooklyn said:
Wrong again.

Modern war is an economic phenomenon as much as a military one..

Most will be along for the ride and will have no clue until it's to late

True, but its already proven that most Americans vote by sitting on their axx and being cheap (not spending their money for either cause).

Brooklyn · Feb 23, 2017

kcbrown said:
Why would the executive ignore a decision that sided with the government?

That has always been the case. The reason the executive doesn't simply summarily ignore all the contrary decisions by the courts is for the purpose of upholding the appearance of adherence to the Constitution. But it is rare that the executive has to ignore such decisions in the first place, since they are comparatively rare.

But in any case, the problem we're talking about here is when the courts and the other branches of government agree with each other in contravention of the Constitution and the principles behind it.

The decision in Kolbe wasn't merely about the ability of the state government to arbitrarily restrict firearms. It's about the ability of any government, including the federal government, to arbitrarily restrict firearms.

Put another way, it is idiocy to give the government the final say in what the citizenry can and cannot do. We lost the fight for liberty the moment the Constitution was ratified, because the Constitution does not place the final check on law in the hands of the people (more specifically, in the hands of a minority vote. You cannot protect the rights of minority populations by insisting that a majority agree with those rights. That way lies tyranny of the majority) -- it places it in the hands of the courts.

Only a minority check against the courts, directly codified into the Constitution, will remedy this in a peaceful manner (and then only as long as the government is willing to maintain the appearance of adhering to the Constitution -- once that goes out the window, the only remaining option is armed revolt).

What actually happened....Was the political branches abidicated power. Out of political cowardess.. The court was seen as a political and thus a trusted umpire..As such a high cost politically was associated with open defiance..

However on both the left and the right this fiction of an apolicial court has been challenged, assailed, and now nearly exposed as pure fraud ..

The left did most of the work, ironically.

But in the end all that matters is that open defiance of the court is no longer a political death trap.

Game on.

Brooklyn · Feb 23, 2017

Mark75H said:
True, but its already proven that most Americans vote by sitting on their axx and being cheap (not spending their money for either cause).

Understand...I am referring to wholesale industrial sabotage..

Which in an age of intellectual property is as untraceable as the invention that never was...

Watch also the debt.. most empires fall, historically on thier ability to back hard money..

kcbrown · Feb 23, 2017

Brooklyn said:
Wrong again.

Modern war is an economic phenomenon as much as a military one..

Tyrannical regimes have managed to survive just fine, even lasting millennia, despite the economics you call out as being a "problem".

Even in the absence of that, why you (appear to -- why else talk about this at all?) think that economic collapse will result in liberty instead of tyranny is quite beyond me...

Most will be along for the ride and will have no clue until it's to late

No argument against that.

kcbrown · Feb 23, 2017

Brooklyn said:
But in the end all that matters is that open defiance of the court is no longer a political death trap.

And the other branches of government would "defy" court decisions that sided with those branches of government because ... ?

The only defiance to be had here is that of the citizenry, but that defiance will be of the entire government, not just of the courts.

Brooklyn · Feb 23, 2017

kcbrown said:
And the other branches of government would "defy" court decisions that sided with those branches of government because ... ?

The only defiance to be had here is that of the citizenry, but that defiance will be of the entire government, not just of the courts.

Just sit and watch.. the left is already defining the Fed..And the courts.. it's only a matter of time..

Brooklyn · Feb 23, 2017

kcbrown said:
Tyrannical regimes have managed to survive just fine, even lasting millennia, despite the economics you call out as being a "problem".

Even in the absence of that, why you (appear to -- why else talk about this at all?) think that economic collapse will result in liberty instead of tyranny is quite beyond me...

No argument against that.

First most modern tryanies are mostly proped up from the outside. Including both the Russian federation...But the US after the fall and China...Via free trade as a hedge against Russia and others..( big joke there)

Second Locke explains in the state of nature...The results of economic collapse...That there are 2 paths...It's a reset not a panacia..

In anycase stable tyranny is better than chaos..The left always devolves into chaos.. that is a given. Unless the tyranny you see is coming from the right...In which case the state will need Brown shirts. That's us..

Left chaos..Right the state arms folks like us to deal with the left...

The republic is dying ...The American experiment has failed.. prepare for what's coming or don't..

If you don't any small window towards a new limited charter for government is gone.

We may get another shot at this... It's once again up to US.

kcbrown · Feb 23, 2017

Brooklyn said:
First most modern tryanies are mostly proped up from the outside.

Is that so? Then name one country (save perhaps for the U.S., a notion that I have to laugh at in the face of the court decision that is the subject of this thread) in the world that protects and nurtures liberty. Just one.

Bet you can't.

Including both the Russian federation...But the US after the fall and China...Via free trade as a hedge against Russia and others..( big joke there)

You seem to think that a state of global tyranny isn't possible, when that is actually the historical norm. Worse, you seem to think that the United States is economically propping up the entire rest of the world.

Second Locke explains in the state of nature...The results of economic collapse...That there are 2 paths...It's a reset not a panacia..

Oh, I agree that it's a reset. But history shows that what follows is almost always tyranny, not liberty. That is not an accident. And I'm deeply skeptical that it is the result of lack of effort on the parts of those who value liberty.

In anycase stable tyranny is better than chaos..The left always devolves into chaos.. that is a given.

Is that so? How "chaotic" was the Soviet Union? How "chaotic" has China been?

Unless the tyranny you see is coming from the right...In which case the state will need Brown shirts. That's us..

The tyranny I see comes from both sides. Both sides love power and control. Both sides work to increase it for themselves.

I'm withholding my judgment about Trump and the people he selects until I see some evidence of his actions. His characteristics are sufficiently different from the norm that it's worth giving him the chance to fail ... or to succeed.

Left chaos..Right the state arms folks like us to deal with the left...

The republic is dying ...The American experiment has failed.. prepare for what's coming or don't..

What's coming is almost certainly tyranny. That's what almost always follows the fall of a republic. Rome should have taught you that.

We may get another shot at this... It's once again up to US.

Most certainly, we can (and indeed have a duty to) do everything in our power to arrange for liberty to prevail. But in the absence of an Article V Convention, I see no way to do that without civil war, and the nature of civil wars of the kind we speak of is such that tyrants almost always prevail in them, in part because people are always sufficiently naive and foolish to believe their siren songs, but mostly because the nature of war, and military structure in general, is that you always have a leader whose orders are enforced, precisely because military operations cannot tolerate dissent within the ranks. People with power are loathe to give up their power, but people with power, and the structure that comes with that, are a necessity of war. That is why tyranny almost always follows civil war.

Brooklyn · Feb 23, 2017

And what have I been taking about for years other than an Article 5 convention?

Meanwhile... Reset is all that's left after the fall..It's not a choice.. so prepare .

Mark75H · Feb 23, 2017

kcbrown said:
People with power are loathe to give up their power, but people with power, and the structure that comes with that, are a necessity of war. That is why tyranny almost always follows civil war.

Cincinnatus and Washington were freaks

Kolbe en banc decision

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

My hair is amazing

Super Genius

Super Genius

My hair is amazing

Active Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

piled higher and deeper

I stand with John Locke.

I stand with John Locke.

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

I stand with John Locke.

I stand with John Locke.

Super Genius

Super Genius

I stand with John Locke.

I stand with John Locke.

Super Genius

I stand with John Locke.

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics