100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

[scipio337]

This is the last post that I am going to make in this thread. I am just tired of beating my head against the wall.

The constitution does not grant you a right to own any weapon you want. That is a false interpretation. The constitution guaranteed the right to possess weapons in order to be part of a well regulated militia. Well regulated is right in the wording, which a lot of people opposed to gun control seem to forget…

I’m not sure you’ll respond since that was your last post, but do you know what the term “regulated”

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

“Regulated” didn’t mean “restricted with 22,000 gun laws”. It mean a functioning militia.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

While they didn’t support the final proposal - did they not support the overall theory? And much like they are with “gun regulation”?

Is there not legitimate parallels?

They continue to climb into bed with Satan and then after they get taken to the cleaners and embarrased for their naivete ona national level, complain “hey, but that’s not what we meant!” and hope the court system and prayer bails us out.

You’d think someone would have sent them a copy of the Frog and the Scorpion by now. They’d be less likely to get stung.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

In my honest view, gun rights have infringed on the rights of victims of mass shootings.

That is a specious argument. Gun rights do not apply to criminals. The murderers “infringed” upon the rights of the innocent. The weapons were merely the means - not the motive.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Can’t something be a ‘deist’ view and still not a Catholic view?

In my honest view, gun rights have infringed on the rights of victims of mass shootings. As Christians, I would think it minor sacrifices, or inconveniences, to contribute constructively to solutions, or possible solutions, to assure an equal right for all. How would closing the private sale loopholes impede your rights? That’s one possible solution. Yes, it may have been a law somewhere, but laws are often amended in an attempt to work better. You’ve mentioned that the assault weapons were already illegal; however, the grandfather status caught us in an ugly way. Now, honestly, do we need address that ‘loophole?’ It cost us dearly, and the families left behind more dearly.

We have failed in stopping ANY crime, but we don’t just stop and say, ‘well, that didn’t work.’

Didn’t you say you were going to stop posting…

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’m going to address your question, referencing the armed population. Even with ‘assault weapons,’ the government is far over matched with weaponry. We are not self sufficient enough to live without the grocery stores, drug stores, clothing stores, utilities, gas, etc., and the transports of all that. The majority of people are not going to put their families through an active war within these borders, not over the pettiness of partisanship. I remember the force used against the young people of the 60s, and they didn’t use any weapons, yet the government reared it’s head and put the people in place. Don’t think that our government wouldn’t unleash it’s power against those who would rise up against it; it would. While the action might be offensive, at the same time it would find support, and could change views at the same time; however, to use arms against this country could very well be the end of the right to bear arms, and at what cost to lives? There is always that collateral damage. Are we ready to put our families in that kind of danger? I think if it came down to it, people would seek peaceful solutions. A war among ourselves would weaken this country to a point of being an easy target for an outside aggressor .

I guess we can count on you to march in step on your way to the re-education center.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Regulated” didn’t mean “restricted with 22,000 gun laws”. It mean a functioning militia.

Like a national guard, or reserves?

mi·li·tia
mə líshə ]

1. 
   *]soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies
   *] reserve military force: a reserve army that is not part of the regular armed forces but can be called up in an emergency
   *] unauthorized quasi-military group: an unauthorized group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Didn’t you say you were going to stop posting…

I’m going to stop posting to posts that are not what I consider to be a part of a constructive discussion.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I’m going to stop posting to posts that are not what I consider to be a part of a constructive discussion.

Like my previous one?

Kidding

 

[pnewton]

Correction, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I thought that title might be too frightening for the little ones here.

For those who miss this, we are referring to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution which the Mighty Marshall Court used to destroy the original balance of power between the state and federal government. This one clause has been expanded in the eyes of many to include anything that involves interstate commerce, defined as anything that involves people breathing air that has blown across state lines.

This is at the heart of what these Sheriffs are doing, once you get past “another gun-control thread.”

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I’m going to stop posting to posts that are not what I consider to be a part of a constructive discussion.

Did the Bishops give you their united support on that - or did you just go all rogue?

Oh, I almost forgot to add: I kid. I kid.

 

[scipio337]

Can’t something be a ‘deist’ view and still not a Catholic view?

And I’ve quoted the Catechism showing agreement, that “Life” is a divinely given right.
Prodigal Son1:

In my honest view, gun rights have infringed on the rights of victims of mass shootings. As Christians, I would think it minor sacrifices, or inconveniences, to contribute constructively to solutions, or possible solutions, to assure an equal right for all.

Not when it infringes on my right to protect my family’s, and the life of others. Remember, the Catechism states this is a moral obligation.

How would closing the private sale loopholes impede your rights? That’s one possible solution. Yes, it may have been a law somewhere, but laws are often amended in an attempt to work better. You’ve mentioned that the assault weapons were already illegal; however, the grandfather status caught us in an ugly way. Now, honestly, do we need address that ‘loophole?’ It cost us dearly, and the families left behind more dearly.

The better question is: how would “closing the private sales loophole stop black market and straw purchases?”

When you propose restricting rights, jurists use a “strict scrutiny” guide.

Do really want to really want to take things a step further and get rid of “grandfathering”, and move toward mandatory confiscation? There are an estimated 3 million AR15s in this country alone, not to mention numerous weapons (or magazines) that fit the nefarious “assault weapon” definition (OMG, a barrel shroud!!!).

Do you really want to start going door to door and confiscating private property, or throwing people in jail, all for the guise of providing some veneer of safety?

 

[scipio337]

Like a national guard, or reserves?

DC v Heller ruled that it’s not only a collective right, but an individual one. If we go on intent alone, all able bodied males at the writing of the Constitution were part of the state militia.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Like a national guard, or reserves?

Or maybe those registered to the Selective Service?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The document is based (at least) in a Deist view, based on ideas on Universal (and God given) rights. You can see the same philosphy in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Governments don’t grant rights. PERIOD.

Rights only extend as far as they don’t infringe upon others. Once you show that my right to peacefully own a firearm infringes on any of your rights, you have a valid argument. In the meantime, you have empty platitudes of “we have to do something!”, when those very laws were either A) in place in Conneticut, or B) have failed to stop mass shootings or bring down crime in the past.

Actually, one can make the very real case that the government infringed on people’s rights to protect themselves (but establishing so-called gun free zones) and people died as a result. This is a direct example that undue government interference, tacitly sold as intended to protect people, had the exact opposite effect.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I thought that title might be too frightening for the little ones here.

For those who miss this, we are referring to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution which the Mighty Marshall Court used to destroy the original balance of power between the state and federal government. This one clause has been expanded in the eyes of many to include anything that involves interstate commerce, defined as anything that involves people breathing air that has blown across state lines.

This is at the heart of what these Sheriffs are doing, once you get past “another gun-control thread.”

Right…the twisted logic being…if you grow your own tomatoes in your own back yard, then you won’t buy tomatoes that are grown in the state next door, thereby affecting interstate commerce. Therefore we have a right to regulate the tomatoes that you grow in your back yard for your personal consumption.

That thinking is so outside the scope of the intent of the Constitution that the drafters didn’t even consider it. Generally speaking, their intention of interstate commerce regulation was the identification of a common and fair system of weights and measures, so that one state didn’t call something a “gallon” that had a different volume from another state, thereby creating a disparity in the trade relationship.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And I’ve quoted the Catechism showing agreement, that “Life” is a divinely given right.

Not when it infringes on my right to protect my family’s, and the life of others. Remember, the Catechism states this is a moral obligation.

The better question is: how would “closing the private sales loophole stop black market and straw purchases?”

When you propose restricting rights, jurists use a “strict scrutiny” guide.

Do really want to really want to take things a step further and get rid of “grandfathering”, and move toward mandatory confiscation? There are an estimated 3 million AR15s in this country alone, not to mention numerous weapons (or magazines) that fit the nefarious “assault weapon” definition (OMG, a barrel shroud!!!).

Do you really want to start going door to door and confiscating private property, or throwing people in jail, all for the guise of providing some veneer of safety?

You posted a reference to the Catechism, where there is a discrepancy on the exact interpretation and application.

So, some rights are more important than other rights, or some people’s rights are more important than other people’s rights?

How has any law stopped anything 100%? There seems to be a higher standard of working on this particular issue. If we reduced the problem 10%, I would think it worthwhile.

If it could have saved those children, would you have agreed to restricting the ‘grandfathered?’ Those children are gone and nothing can bring them back; however, it’s not the first time we’ve seen children attacked, and I’d be for anything to prevent a re-occurrence.

I would like to think that the majority of those millions of owners are law abiding and wouldn’t necessitate the action you describe. Also, I would be open to other suggestions that might prevent those ‘grandfathered’ weapons from falling into the wrong hands. I think there are other measures besides banning, but when people reject closing the private sale loophole, it makes me think they certainly wouldn’t be open to alternatives to a complete banning.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

DC v Heller ruled that it’s not only a collective right, but an individual one. If we go on intent alone, all able bodied males at the writing of the Constitution were part of the state militia.

The problem becomes is the view that can require the militia be activated. There is a controlling force behind even a well regulated militia, and it’s not up for individual intent. That controlling force becomes a ‘governing’ body, like a government.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The problem becomes is the view that can require the militia be activated. There is a controlling force behind even a well regulated militia, and it’s not up for individual intent. That controlling force becomes a ‘governing’ body, like a government.

The governing body of a state militia is …the governor of the state. A true militia has NO federal governance, so the National Guard is NOT a militia, it is a locally run aspect of the Army/Navy/Air Force.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Like a national guard, or reserves?

Well, both the DC Court of Appeals and SCOTUS examined the issue and rejected it. The prefaratory clause, although it gives an indication of a benefit of the citizens continuing to exercise the RKBA they’d had under British rule benefiting milita service, was not a limitation on the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Both courts went into detail of the significance of using the term the people consistently throughout the constitution. The reasoning is far too detailed and lengthy to go into here, but a link to the DC decision-

dcguncase.com/blog/dc-circuit-decision/

I strongly recommend reading this decision as well as all the other court filings to understand how the court concluded that it is an individual right, not contingent on age or militia service, and for the purposes of self-defense, hunting and opposition to tyranny.

Basically, the court concluded consistent with the Catholic church that out of respect for life and the culture of life, the means to defend oneself and those one is responsible for necesitates access to suitable weapons.

Some excerpts:

The current congressional definition of the “Militia”
accords with original usage: “The militia of the United States
consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . .
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of
female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.” 10 U.S.C. § 311. The statute then
distinguishes between the “organized militia,” which consists of
the National Guard and Naval Militia, and the “unorganized
militia,” which consists of every member of the militia who is
not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

ETA: Just noticed, women are only a part of the militia if they join the National guard. What about those in the active military? Or now that the combat roles have been opened up, would women now be considered part of the militia even whan not a member of the National Guard?

Here’s an excerpt which refers to the militia act of 1792, which the court was using to illustrate the founders understanding of the militia…

Be it enacted . . . [t]hat each and every free able-bodied
white male citizen of the respective states, resident
therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years,
and under the age of forty-five years (except as is
herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively
be enrolled in the militia, by the captain or
12Congress enacted this provision pursuant to its Article I, Section
8 powers over the militia: “The Congress shall have the power . . . [t]o
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of
the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress . . . .” U.S. CONST., art. I., sec. 8.
commanding officer of the company, within whose
bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve
months after the passing of this Act. And . . . every
such captain or commanding officer of a company . . .
shall without delay notify such citizen of the said
enrollment . . . . That every citizen, so enrolled and
notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide
himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient
bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a
pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than
twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket
or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity
of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack,
shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to
the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of
powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and
provided, when called out to exercise, or into service

The reader will note that the Act’s first requirement is that
the “free able-bodied white male” population between eighteen
and forty-five enroll in the militia. And enrollment was quite
distinct from the various other regulations prescribed by
Congress, which included the type of weaponry members of the
militia must own. Becoming “enrolled” in the militia appears tomilitia officer—somewhat analogous to our nation’s current
practice of requiring young men to register under the Selective
Service Act. Silveira, 328 F.3d at 578 (Kleinfeld, J.). Thus
when read in light of the second Militia Act, Miller defines the
militia as having only two primary characteristics: It was all
free, white, able-bodied men of a certain age who had given
their names to the local militia officers as eligible for militia
service. Contrary to the District’s view, there was no
organizational condition precedent to the existence of the
“Militia.” Congress went on in the second Militia Act to
prescribe a number of rules for organizing the militia. But the
militia itself was the raw material from which an organized
fighting force was to be created.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The governing body of a state militia is …the governor of the state. A true militia has NO federal governance, so the National Guard is NOT a militia, it is a locally run aspect of the Army/Navy/Air Force.

So a federal governance applied a well regulated militia in the 2nd amendment to individual states? They did this with a United States constitution.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

I believe the ‘free state’ was not an individual state, but referring to the United States as a whole…