Originally posted by Hopechest
Well gun laws are not against the Constitution so they wouldn't qualify.
In fact I will pose a challenge to anyone. I bet that you can't find a single current law (not in the court system) that I couldn't justify somehow
under the Constituion.
There may be but I've never failed at this test.
U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Two:
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? No gun laws are constitutional under the second amendment.
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This establishes the constitution as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and the judges in every state are bound by it to uphold it THIS IS WHY THEY TAKE
AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!
Any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void...
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a
secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly
our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it
would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality
would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens
are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
Notice it says ANYTHING that is in conflict with the constitution is null and void and its unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a
law, NOT FROM THE DATE SO BRANDED IN AN OPEN COURT OF LAW!
Read that again that means that anything the legislature passes that is unconstitutional is so from the date of its inception not when the court says
Murdock v. Penn. 319 US 1051943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution... No state may convert any secured liberty into a
privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 2621962)
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can
ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”
The last two state that the state cannot convert a right to a privileged and issue a license and a fee for it and if they do YOU HAVE THE RGHT TO
IGNORE IT WITH IMPUNITY!
This is settled case law IN THE SUPREME COURT and never been overturned it is the final word on the matter. Anything contrary to it is null and void
and without force of law and is to be ignored with impunity! And their are no exception clauses on the second Amendment allowing "some" infringements
it says none zero nada!
edit on 27-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)