Your oath doesn't count

a reply to: yuppa

So I am RIGHT and you are wrong here. You Obviously are not getting what I am saying or intentionally ignoiring it.

You're saying that the 2nd Amendment allows for age qualifications.

But you're wrong. The 2nd Amendment doesn't. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution does.

a reply to: DAVID64

These "leftists" are all Roman Catholic... they don't answer to our constitution... they follow papal law! This is why it doesn't matter which party you vote for and why McConnell and McCarthy will not step down or follow the will of the people. Kennedy was killed after he promised the American people he would NOT do the will of the pope.

youtu.be...

For anyone who wants to follow this rabbit down the hole, here is a deep dive into cannon law... communism was based on cannon law, Carl Marx just removed God. This is why the pope today keep praising socialism and condemning capitalism! Catholics do not hold our constitution as absolute..... They hold the pope's will as absolute and will burn our constitution down if they find it is in the way.
The only was were gonna stop this is to hold our leaders accountable... and unless you know they are implementing catholic "common good" laws OVER our constitution, your just gonna blame it on George sorros.

for instance, catholic govenor Gavin Newsom is implementing the policies of catholic law that allows the "poor and needy" to steal what they need... heck you cant even stop the shoplifters or YOU will be jailed(the above video covers this and even shows the cannon law references). this is bankrupting retailers across the state and destroying society...

This is also why the southern border is wide open... yes we are being replaced, and about 40 million new socialist who will be given voting rights will make sure America and our constitution is changed forever soon(as soon as they have the majority).

people far to easily forget, OUR nation was built on PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN principals.... catholics HAVE always been leftists who sided with every facist government of the past(again covered in the above video).

Unless we educate ourselves as to the source of this poisonous doctrine undermining society today

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I proved what I was saying.

originally posted by: DAVID64

This is the infuriating thing about the Democrats/Leftists. They hide behind the Constitution when it benefits their agenda, but walk all over it when it doesn't. When you take that Oath, whether it be as a soldier or politician, you uphold it. You don't manipulate it to fit your personal feelings.

I'm guessing you must have been really upset when Donald Trump ignored his oath and didn't fight to protect free speech when he was President then?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SourGrapes

What Constitution? Why even take an oath? She said it herself, "is not intended to be absolute".

The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute. Neither is any particular interpretation of the US Constitution. Even Supreme Court justices disagree, all the time.

There are legal no-gun zones, like courtrooms and such. Making a whole city gun restricted is quite the stretch though.

So you’re saying the rules are whatever whomever in charge wants them to be, authoritarianism. Please clarify if I’ve misunderstood.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DAVID64

Well, that's how she gets around the Constitution. But I doubt it'll hold up in court.

It will never go to Court. For that to happen you need someone to be arrested and convicted for violating it. Only then will they have "standing" to challenge it.

That's how the Courts took the easy way out for the 2020 election challenges.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Honestly, I don't know about that, or who can and why they can challenge an emergency public health order, but the Governor's office seems to think that it will be challenged.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has issued an emergency public health order temporarily suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County.

The Democratic governor said she expects legal challenges but was compelled to act because of recent shootings, including the death of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.

Certainly, there won't be any arrests for violating the order because...

Lujan Grisham said state police would be responsible for enforcing what amount to civil violations. Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina said he won’t enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he’s uneasy about it because it raises too many questions about constitutional rights.

www.usatoday.com...

Well, the DA of Alburquerque says they won't enforce it, as it is clearly unconstitutional.
Article

a reply to: chiefsmom

And I think that's great! But, if we were talking about Florida, Ron Desantis would fire that DA.

In this case, the fact law enforcement is refusing to enforce her edict is this Governor's saving grace! LOL

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: chiefsmom

And I think that's great! But, if we were talking about Florida, Ron Desantis would fire that DA.

In this case, the fact law enforcement is refusing to enforce her edict is this Governor's saving grace! LOL

Desantis couldn't fire the State DA. It is an elected position. The Florida Legislature would have to impeach the DA. If you're thinking that he's already done it, that was a County DA and Florida's law gives the Governor the power to suspend a Local Official. Then the Legislature has to vote on it.

When Tom Wolf went full Dictator mode in 2020, there were several lawsuits, but, the Courts threw them out because Wolf never charged anybody for violating his proclamations. The Court later ruled that he overstepped his authority but declined to do anything to him because he only had good intentions. Of course it was a Democrat controlled Court.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Desantis couldn't fire the State DA. It is an elected position.

Andrew Warren was elected.
Fe deral judge rules DeSantis violated state Constitution when firing state attorney but termination upheld

a reply to: Sookiechacha

"Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren"

Warren was a County Attorney, not a State Attorney. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. I also mentioned that he could suspend him but, the Legislature had to vote to fire him. The Legislature never voted on Warren.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Warren was a County Attorney, not a State Attorney.

He was a locally elected State Attorney of Florida's 13th Judicial Circuit, located in Hillsborough County. DeSantis suspended him for, supposedly, refusing to enforce the Florida State Law. However, the judge ruled that Warren didn't refuse to enforce state law because there was no official state law in place at the time of Warren's threats.

From the Judge's ruling:

Florida has 20 judicial circuits. As required by the Florida Constitution, each circuit has an elected state attorney who serves as the circuit’s chief prosecutor. Fla. Const. art. V, §17.A state attorney is part of the executive branch, but under Florida’s unique constitutional structure, a state attorney is not an employee of, or supervised by, the governor. Instead, a state attorney is a constitutional officer — an officer of independent stature within Florida government.
A state attorney has complete discretion in making the decision to charge and prosecute any given case.
Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 1982)

And

To be sure, a governor may suspend certain officials, including state attorneys, for “malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness,incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony.” Fla. Const. art. IV, §7(a). Even so, “the power to remove is not analogous to the power to control.”
Whiley v. Scott, 79 So.3d 702, 715 (Fla. 2011).
Running a state attorney’s office is the state attorney’s job, not the governor’s. A governor cannot properly suspend a state attorney based on policy differences

So, yeah you're right, Desantis had the legal right to suspend Warren, but he skated outside the Constitution to do so, violating Warren's 1st Amendment rights.

I don't know the law in New Mexico, but the fact that law enforcement is refusing to enforce the Governor's edict is a good thing for her. It lets appear all authoritiarian, but the real authority is going to allow the people to stay armed. She would be a fool to try and suspend any of them, in my opinion. It's her only saving grace.

a reply to: DAVID64

I wonder how long it will take the People to realize that their consent can be withheld? If the 2nd Amendment can be arbitrarily ignored, isn't there almost an obligation to ignore the 16th amendment and withhold the financing to starve out lawless tyrants? They'd be forced to rely on their limitless capacity for corruption to survive.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DAVID64

I agree that the 2nd Amendment has protected a woman's right to bear arms since its inception.

HOWEVER, women were NOT considered part of "The Militia", which was defined by Congress in 1916 as being composed of "able bodied men".

I also agree that New Mexico's governor has gone overboard with her "health emergency" gun ban edict. But governors can and do impose Martial Law from time to time.

Why do you think it's "militia" in the 2nd amendment and "Militia" later under the purview of the federal govt?

because in 2A Militia is the Why of the right, not the right itself. Preventing the citizens from private firearm ownership was seen as a barrier to establishing a militia when needed. For example, when politicians no longer recognize long established constitutional rights. a reply to: JinMI

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit
because in 2A Militia is the Why of the right, not the right itself. Preventing the citizens from private firearm ownership was seen as a barrier to establishing a militia when needed. For example, when politicians no longer recognize long established constitutional rights. a reply to: JinMI

My question is why is it "militia" under the Constitution, but under the federal takeover of "Militia" is it capitalized?

I have a fairly good understanding of not only the words used in the 2nd, but they why's as well.

a reply to: JinMI

"militia" is a noun referring to a generality. "Militia" the "M" is capitalized because it refers to a specific militia, making it a proper noun.
EXAMPLE: "During recess the boys liked to play army. " "army" has a small "a" because it isn't referring to a specific army.
"During WWII the United States Army fought in the European and Pacific Theaters. "Army" has a capital "A" because
it refers to a specific Army.

That's the end of English 101.

The Second Amendment is absolute.
So is the first.
All of them are.
We, the people, have allowed too much.
reply to: Sookiechacha

a reply to: MortemTyrannis07041776

What about Hunter Biden's 2nd Amendment rights? Are they absolute for him too?