So much to say, so little time I'm willing to invest....
I'm not sure whether I am more humored or dismayed that I can be absent from this thread for nearly two weeks and check in to find the latest response addressing my submissions. Forgive the "bullet" format, but I can't think of a better way to address every question/statement/attack made towards my comments.
-I'm not avoiding the exchanges. I'm simply busy. I don't spend my life in front of a computer and when I do have the time, OC does not always rush to my mind. If you're looking for pithy back and forths in a timely fashion, it's not going to happen.
I don't think anybody expects a timely response. So long as you respond casually and within some acceptable time frame, you will not get labelled as a troll I am sure.
-Ya....I get it.....You're constitutionalists.....That's fine. Why stop there? There is another document, written by man, that had and has been used, in whole or in part, to create the laws we live by. It's called The Bible. Were there changes made in the writing of the constitution that did not completely gel with the Bible? Were biblical scholars in an uproar? Were the constitution writers courageous in their massaging of the laws of man set forth in the Bible? Here's my point; don't be hypocritical. These works may very well be perfect for the time they are written yet not be perfect for all time. Unless you are out there following OC, Jesus Christ, than every one of you falls short in some behavior guiding man-written document...No matter how wonderful that document may be.
This series of comments is completely devoid of any value towards the argument of Constitutional limitation as the foundation of law in this country. The reason this is so is simple:
It ignores that the Constitution, whether you
like it or not is the foundation for law in this country. It does not specify that one may, at their own whim, or the whim of their superiors in a given government organization, discard the limitations it applies against them.
Arguing for the aging of a document is completely devoid of any rationality at all. It is without any evident critical thinking and is completely
not applicable.
The document must be assessed on its merits and, if found lacking, use the supplied process to amend it as required.
You completely confuse the disconnect between Biblical law and societal law as well by the way, which is a perceptual failing on your behalf.
-For those many of you who challenge me to stop talking and start listening....I am listening, but just because this little sliver of a community feels a certain way, it doesn't make it so. There are 26,000 of you in a nation with 312,000,000. You telling me I need to listen to you is akin to 4 people at a sold out Rose Bowl football game (75,000) demanding all 74.996 listen to them....Tone that stuff down...
Got to go, I'll be back...
Let's get to the nitty-gritty.
#1. The U.S. Constitution is our foundational law. If you do not like it, you cannot outright ignore it. This is what the Amendment process is for. Short of that, as a paramilitary or military servant, you are bound to it. Period. There is no excuse, escape, or diversion from this fact.
#2.
Heller and
McDonald are substantiating many of our claims as our highest of courts in either cases could not construct an argument against our position. So far, we are completely right.
#3. You completely owe your allegiance and obedience to the U.S Constitution in your role. It is not something you may dismiss without endangering your role as a law enforcement officer, and losing your qualified immunity.
To the bottom line, I suggest this for an emerging sequence of events.
California may have banned open carry by law abiding citizens. On a national scale California is obscure, and contrary to national rulings on the subject. It is also extremely contrary to the carry methods and practices in use in every other state. As you should know in your role, the 2nd Amendment is
incorporated against the states, regardless their lack of states constitutional declarations, protections, or lack of same. Once the subject of Constitutionality comes to bear in the Supreme Court via some litigation brought on by AB144 or (e), maybe even emphatically supported and engaged in by your department, under your direct supervision, you may find yourself sued not only for monetary remuneration, but for other penalties accrued from deprivation of rights under color of law. The fact of the matter is that these activities, and their Constitutionality will be eventually decided, and that with the mountains of cases in which individuals have sued their municipalities and won on various fronts (Presence of a firearm does not constitute probable cause, various deprivation of rights charges, violations of the 4th due to officers clear misinterpretation of the 2nd and pplicability of
Terry etc. etc.).
Where will your department be and, what guidance will you be providing up unto the point where the Constitutionality of AB144 is determined, weighing it heavily against the Constitution itself?
Will you still be claiming the Constitution, our foundational law, is some old document that doesn't apply?
Do you think the courts will agree with you with all the cases being weighed already heavily against the Constitution?
I will put my money heavily on the Constitution, and watch you, your department, and the state of California take one hard hook to the chin in the first round for that early K.O.
Also, and I mean this sincerely: Thank you so much for reminding me of why I climbed to the top of the pass beyond Redding, turned around, and flipped the state I grew up in the bird. Native Californian from birth until I was 23 and left for foreign lands.
I couldn't have made a better decision!
.