update on legislative discussion : ESB 5061

[sudden valley gunner]

Other than the fact it points out that not just some Police and Public Employees feel that they are above the law. Others obviously do as well.

Well the citizens are and can be above the law and often have a duty to break unconstitutional laws. Police and public employees are not above the law (actually supposed to be more accountable being they are constitutionally restricted). Yet they seem to get away with breaking it all the time. For example the deputy who allegedly made a witness erase pictures of the arrest and detainment of the Lynden Fair shooter. His actions were illegal.

I often hear Madison's quote misapplied, when people say we are a "Nation of laws not of men". What Madison's intent was that our "Nation" is governed by laws not governed by men. Like England with its Aristocracy and Monarchy. This quote isn't meant that the people of the nation must follow the laws. Our laws are supposed to restrict the government while leaving the people as free as possible.

This is why the founders adopted the Blackstone legal tradition when concerning free individuals, there must be a victim, actus reus and mens rea for there to be a crime. And juries were to and could nullify laws. Instead we have people who are mislead thinking if a law was broken someone has to pay (regaurdless if it doesn't meet, Blackstone tradition) they often buy into or are simply dismissed if they believe in nullification, and are given strict orders that are contrary to what a full jury duty entitles.

For good reading read "Tyranny of Good Intentions, How prosecutors and Law Enforcement are trampling the constitution in the name of justice". It really breaks down how our system is supposed to work. By Roberts and Stratton

Also "Who killed the Constitution" by Thomas. E. Woods Jr.

Also "Constitutional Chaos, What happens when the government Breaks its own laws" By Judge Napolitano.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

 

[tombrewster421]

Tom I agree with your first part of your statement of exposing those scumbags or illegally operating, same thing right?

I was just browsing https://fortress.wa.gov/lni/bbip/ looking for your contractor license, did not see one.

Yeah I guess I could clarify that I'm not the one with the license. I work for Jody Miller Construction but I still consider myself to be a contractor and have been in the industry since I was 19 so I've seen enough. My brother also has a license as a general contractor and I've seen how he's been screwed by the state and how it truly makes it difficult for one to be a small business and obey all the laws. You have to be big to afford all the taxes.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yeah I guess I could clarify that I'm not the one with the license. I work for Jody Miller Construction but I still consider myself to be a contractor and have been in the industry since I was 19 so I've seen enough. My brother also has a license as a general contractor and I've seen how he's been screwed by the state and how it truly makes it difficult for one to be a small business and obey all the laws. You have to be big to afford all the taxes.

Designed that way on purpose.

Ludwig Von Mises, has written that technically socialism is where government owns business to control it, but that it still is effectively socialism when they write laws and regulation to control you and your business, who can be in business etc.

Some people are truly afraid of being free.

 

[amlevin]

I often hear Madison's quote misapplied, when people say we are a "Nation of laws not of men". What Madison's intent was that our "Nation" is governed by laws not governed by men. Like England with its Aristocracy and Monarchy. This quote isn't meant that the people of the nation must follow the laws. Our laws are supposed to restrict the government while leaving the people as free as possible.

Yet the laws you advocate ignoring were passed by men (and women) elected by the majority to represent them. You apparently believe that any law YOU don't believe in should be ignored. The right to carry firearms is assured by the 2nd Amendment. THAT is a restriction on Government. Laws passed to protect people from predators are not there to restrict government, they are there to restrict the actions of those who think "anything goes".

Courts have found that restrictions on firearms, as long as they are not an outright denial of 2A rights, are acceptable. Many don't agree but as long as the Courts find the laws to be Constitutional one can ignore them at their peril.

Laws were passed to regulate the practices of many professions in order to protect the public. For those that don't agree with the laws, and choose to ignore them, what makes them any different than an Illegal Immigrant who doesn't like the idea of making application for legal entry to this country to obtain employment? Just like they take jobs from legitimate workers, those who ignore laws such as the requirement for licensing Contractors gain unfair advantage on those who do follow the laws. An Undocumented Worker who offers his services for less or an Unlicensed Contractor who does the same, what's the difference.

I fail to see the difference between a Police Officer who doesn't follow the law and any other who feels they are above the law. One can make any excuse they want for why they choose to ignore the law(s) and excuses sure seem plentiful.

 

[amlevin]

For example the deputy who allegedly made a witness erase pictures of the arrest and detainment of the Lynden Fair shooter. His actions were illegal.

Was this ever verified or is it just another allegation passed around by hearsay.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Was this ever verified or is it just another allegation passed around by hearsay.

Looking into it still. Been busy with some other things. But the girl who's stated the deputy forced her to delete the pictures posts have been erased by the Herald.

Yet another posters discussion of it hasn't been. I would tend to believe this happened, having seen how our local LEO react to being recorded, and having seen them try to argue you can't.

 

[tombrewster421]

I fail to see the difference between a Police Officer who doesn't follow the law and any other who feels they are above the law. One can make any excuse they want for why they choose to ignore the law(s) and excuses sure seem plentiful.

The difference is that none of us have SWORN an OATH to uphold those laws. We are FORCED to obey or be punished. Those who enforce them are rarely punished, or are exempt from many of the same laws they enforce. Where is the contract that you signed to be placed under the jurisdiction of the law? For traffic laws it was when you first asked permission to drive (get your license). For someone doing business, it's the same. If I were to choose to do work for someone, I would not ask for permission from the state because then they would have the authority to enforce their laws upon me. Yes, the laws are the "States", not mine. I will not make further contracts with the State. I'm in deep enough already.

 

[Varmiter]

I’ve just read through 2 pages of this thread and I’m absolutely astonished at what is being said. Apart from a few comments which were on topic and relevant, the rest brings forth the true nature of many on this forum, and as usual, rises to the surface. Agendas/PERSONAL opinions abound.

Well folks, it’s wake up time. The law is the law.

Now just in case you missed it, I’ll say it again.

The Law is the Law.

Likewise:

Any proposed law is what it is. Do I really need to repeat once again to get your attention?

OK.....lets talk about law, or proposed law. I’m assuming that everyone here knows about HR 822. Well, if not, then look it up.

I also assume everyone here knows about the so called “Firearms Freedom Act”. If not look it up.

Now for those who actually DO know about these two bits of legislation, has anyone here actually bothered to look into the ramifications of the interactions of these two bits.

The interactions of these two can and will have a dramatic effect on your ability to carry. Don’t expect me to do your work for you. You research it. You might find a surprise. However, if you choose to just continue, then you fall under the very broad brush of “Apathy”. Those willing to bitch and moan while not willing to really understand reality as it exists today and as such, not attempting to do something about it.

There are two members here who know exactly what I’m talking about.

If the majority here do not wish to face reality/law and just expound on personal opinions, this just further erodes the credibility of this forum. Something the owner and mods should take into consideration.

Chris

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I studied a bit a history and there was the group of guys in the 1700's, who were under law, and decided to talk about their opinions and what should be, and actually engaged in "illegal" acts in the name of liberty. :lol:

Get rid of stupid laws, reeducate people on how law is supposed to work in our country, We need to take liberty back. The law isn't the law? Didn't Justice Marshal rule in Marburry vs. Madison that unconstitutional law is null and void?

Yes we know the reality and many of us work to do what we can in small ways to change it. Others bitch and moan, bitching and moaning leads to discussion which can lead to action. Yep gotta love that freedom of speech.

 

[Varmiter]

I studied a bit a history and there was the group of guys in the 1700's, who were under law, and decided to talk about their opinions and what should be, and actually engaged in "illegal" acts in the name of liberty. :lol:

Get rid of stupid laws, reeducate people on how law is supposed to work in our country, We need to take liberty back. The law isn't the law? Didn't Justice Marshal rule in Marburry vs. Madison that unconstitutional law is null and void?

Yes we know the reality and many of us work to do what we can in small ways to change it. Others bitch and moan, bitching and moaning leads to discussion which can lead to action. Yep gotta love that freedom of speech.

Ok, I can agree with most of what you said.

So, once again, whether you think a law is unjust or not is irrelevant unless you are actively trying to get the law changed. Until such law is changed, it is the law.

So, regarding the law, or possible upcoming law, what is your opinion of the “Firearms Freedom Act” as has already passed in 7 states. This will ultimately get to the Supreme Court. Whichever way the Supreme Court decides, what will this mean to you personally. The outcome will have a DIRECT effect on you personally. The real question is how, through the Constitution, will this effect everyone.

Hint:
This has nothing to do with with the manufacture of firearms to remain within a particular state. It is a challenge to existing law. It will depend on which state you live in.

Look into the Constitution for the answer.

Chris

 

[CEM]

I studied a bit a history and there was the group of guys in the 1700's, who were under law, and decided to talk about their opinions and what should be, and actually engaged in "illegal" acts in the name of liberty. :lol:

Get rid of stupid laws, reeducate people on how law is supposed to work in our country, We need to take liberty back. The law isn't the law? Didn't Justice Marshal rule in Marburry vs. Madison that unconstitutional law is null and void?

Yes we know the reality and many of us work to do what we can in small ways to change it. Others bitch and moan, bitching and moaning leads to discussion which can lead to action. Yep gotta love that freedom of speech.

I believe we both posted we might not agree on a lot of things but I will surprise you and say I agree with a lot of what your saying. I'm sure some of the laws and such that are in effect I might agree with and you may not but that's what free speech is for. I have respect for people like yourself who aren't out there stealing, assaulting people, ect instead going out and earning a living, building a life and using your rights as an American. This county is founded on people "bitching and moaning" in order to effect change. This change has often brought about needed reform. Government isn't perfect (hell I work for it, the state, and I see a lot of messed up crap) and society as a whole should be free to effect change, protest, redress, ect.

I'm torn on working on changing laws that some may see as unconstitutional. On one hand I don't advocate breaking a law just because you don't agree with it and not be willing to accept the consequences but if a law is truly not "right" for a free society I don't expect unwavering loyalty for it either. I think people's first amendment rights are the best "power" out there.

I do have a question SVG, when you have an opinion on a law, policy of government, ect do you feel open to hearing from "other" sides and discussing. From reading other posts from you I have seen nothing but a cordial person who hasn't personally attacked anyone, so I'm assuming so but I would be interested in your response. I'm thinking we would have some interesting discussions.

Anyway, have a good evening (I'm heading to sleep after a late work night).

 

[CEM]

Nope you got me wrong and we've discussed this before public employees and servants are not comparable to private sector folks.

That's ok though, I don't mind, irritating government and their minions, if it means more liberty. I don't believe we need the approval and cooperation of our servants and employees.

And you have yet to proven "anti-LEO" Bashing I do, that would be against forum rules, and as of yet I have not been censored, how about you? I use facts and logic to support my viewpoints. Just because my viewpoints may irritate those who "love law-enforcement" bothers me not. Something needs to be done to curtail and minimize government and police in our lives, how are we to do that if we dare not piss off cops and those who suffer from "copafilia".

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Can I not be called a "minion?" I do think for myself. My parents taught me to use my brain.

Just being upfront with you, I do get a feeling from you that all LE are "not good" and "F them all". I am sure that's not how you feel and I think a big part of it is no one get really get a sense of how someone really feels about them, about their opinions, ect unless u meet them face to face. Just posting on a board is a good way to communicate but I don't think is enough.

Anyway, I am not sure this makes %100 sense, I'm tired and am going to bed but I wanted to get a quick response out.

And commenting on a later post, I would judge someone as a contractor more on their work and how other customers see them then just a license. Hell my dentist was reprimanded by the health department for "poor recording keeping" but he fixed it and I will always go because he's a nice guy who does a good job.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I believe we both posted we might not agree on a lot of things but I will surprise you and say I agree with a lot of what your saying. I'm sure some of the laws and such that are in effect I might agree with and you may not but that's what free speech is for. I have respect for people like yourself who aren't out there stealing, assaulting people, ect instead going out and earning a living, building a life and using your rights as an American. This county is founded on people "bitching and moaning" in order to effect change. This change has often brought about needed reform. Government isn't perfect (hell I work for it, the state, and I see a lot of messed up crap) and society as a whole should be free to effect change, protest, redress, ect.

I'm torn on working on changing laws that some may see as unconstitutional. On one hand I don't advocate breaking a law just because you don't agree with it and not be willing to accept the consequences but if a law is truly not "right" for a free society I don't expect unwavering loyalty for it either. I think people's first amendment rights are the best "power" out there.

I do have a question SVG, when you have an opinion on a law, policy of government, ect do you feel open to hearing from "other" sides and discussing. From reading other posts from you I have seen nothing but a cordial person who hasn't personally attacked anyone, so I'm assuming so but I would be interested in your response. I'm thinking we would have some interesting discussions.

Anyway, have a good evening (I'm heading to sleep after a late work night).

I enjoy our discussions because you seem to understand that my position doesn't make me a cop hater, just someone who thinks they need to be reformed and limited. I enjoy hearing from other sides and points of view sometimes I even change or alter my point of view or thinking because of it. I learn a lot from flushing my own thoughts out and hearing others thoughts too.

And like yourself I don't advocate breaking the law. And like how you stated you don't expect 'unwavering loyalty' to it. Well put. I look forward to our future discussions.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Can I not be called a "minion?" I do think for myself. My parents taught me to use my brain.

Just being upfront with you, I do get a feeling from you that all LE are "not good" and "F them all". I am sure that's not how you feel and I think a big part of it is no one get really get a sense of how someone really feels about them, about their opinions, ect unless u meet them face to face. Just posting on a board is a good way to communicate but I don't think is enough.

Anyway, I am not sure this makes 0 sense, I'm tired and am going to bed but I wanted to get a quick response out.

And commenting on a later post, I would judge someone as a contractor more on their work and how other customers see them then just a license. Hell my dentist was reprimanded by the health department for "poor recording keeping" but he fixed it and I will always go because he's a nice guy who does a good job.

No I don't feel all LE are not good. I have posted in the past that I do feel we have as a society a desire or "need" to have some. I have met many good State Troopers and have had some great experiences with them, our local Sheriff is an alright guy, don't agree with all his positions and his "proactive" law enforcement but actually have had some good discussions with him on certain other aspects of the law. Our local city police have more problems (as I seem to find more corruption and problems in city PD's than other PD's, maybe because they are not a constitutionally elected force).

I have met many fine individual officers, I have also seen them close ranks to protect themselves and other officers even when those officers were blatantly out of line. I have seen them lie in court and in their reports (felony). I have seen them use coercion to force or scare people into giving up their rights.

Minion:
1. An obsequious follower or dependent; a sycophant.2. A subordinate official, especially a servile one.
3. One who is highly esteemed or favored; a darling.

We have heard on this board many officers who have stated they are just following orders or just doing their job (sounds like a minion). Others like Mclean even stated they could get could fired for some of their opinions (it's why he uses a pseudoname I am assuming) and he considers himself a civil libertarian. That is sad when an officer can't express liberty ideas without getting in trouble. Was it in Everett the officer had to quit because of persecution from others because he wouldn't enforce minor pot offenses?

I hope you don't take personal offense at anything I say it isn't meant to be aimed at individuals. Well sometimes certain individuals point out exactly why they fit into what I am talking about. :lol:
But the term Law en"force"ment bugs me. And is unconstitutional in my opinion, it raises officers above civilian status and makes them into the standing army against who? And some of the things I read about training they go through encourages this thinking.

I agree face to face is good, I think that is why we are such a good group in Washington we range from Socialist to Anarchist yet many of get together for coffee and meets.

If you come up to Whatcom or Bellingham let me know we can meet for coffee, being self employed (well actually not right now, but the guy I am helping lets me act that way anyway) I can take time off and have a cup of coffee or lunch with you. We try to have weekly meets Sunday at Bakerview Starbucks 10 a.m.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ok, I can agree with most of what you said.

So, once again, whether you think a law is unjust or not is irrelevant unless you are actively trying to get the law changed. Until such law is changed, it is the law.

So, regarding the law, or possible upcoming law, what is your opinion of the “Firearms Freedom Act” as has already passed in 7 states. This will ultimately get to the Supreme Court. Whichever way the Supreme Court decides, what will this mean to you personally. The outcome will have a DIRECT effect on you personally. The real question is how, through the Constitution, will this effect everyone.

Hint:
This has nothing to do with with the manufacture of firearms to remain within a particular state. It is a challenge to existing law. It will depend on which state you live in.

Look into the Constitution for the answer.

Chris

I am not sure I am following your though process here, or maybe I am just a little slow on grasping the point you are trying to have me think about.

I think "Firearms Freedom Act" is interesting but won't work, SCOTUS has unconstitutionally "interpreted" the commerce clause and until that and other horrible decisions are over turned, we will continually see involvement and infringement upon our rights and state powers by the feds. I do think states who are fighting for 10th amendment powers whether it be guns, Marijuana, etc. are on the right track. To be honest I really haven't looked into it too much.

HR 822 is scary proposition to me, because it opens the door for more Federal regulation. I'd rather see SCOTUS rule that a state simply cannot infringe upon an individuals right to bear arms in what ever manner he safely chooses to. I can dream can't I? :lol:

I simply don't agree that our country was founded on the principle of "rule of law" being applied to individuals. "Rule of law" was originally intended that our governments were governed by law not the people. That is why folks like Jefferson so strongly believed in nullification both by states and individuals. Virginia, I believe, even put it as part of their ratification clause. Of course that tyrant Lincoln didn't agree with it.

We are not meant to have career politicians. Many who call themselves "lawmakers" and "leaders", we are supposed to have representatives. Working class people who represented others who contributed to society not take from it. I don't want a leader We are not sheep or someones property to be led about or penned and controlled by "law". That is contrary to a free and liberal society.

This doesn't mean I am "anti" every law. Drinking and driving being illegal good law, jay walking bad law. Murder, rape, stealing, fraud, good laws.