Notes From HPS
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 10 months ago
Regardless, the outcome of one case hardly justifies unfounded allegations of a Jim Crow-based trend, and what’s quickly obvious is a clumsily transparent agenda to equate defensive gun use with white racism against blacks.
Well, we’ve seen how the progressives like to hurl insults rather than debate rationally. I see “stand your ground” laws as fairly simple, actually. Anyone who understands self defense, whether by hand, knife, gun or any other weapon, would tell you that you cannot assume that you have time to escape. My philosophy has always been evasion, escape and egress. But there are times when that will not work to ameliorate the threat. During those times, immediate reaction should be your plan. Turning and running is sure to get you killed. That has nothing whatsoever to do with race. You will also get killed if you try to run from very bad white guys.
The Department of Justice will inevitably claim that the nullification section of the law is unconstitutional, pushing the issue to the courts. Who can say what will happen there, but few would argue that it will be easy to get the courts to back the states in breaking the federal government’s grip on the power it has usurped over a period of well over a century.
This is more necessary reading by Kurt. As I’ve argued as well, “although if it goes to federal court and is overturned (as it would certainly be in federal court), then it was never really a nullification law at all. Federal court rulings would have to be ignored in order to meet the definition of a nullification law.” We must be willing to throw federal agents into State Penitentiaries with the general prison population and throw away the key.
Mike Vanderboegh is discussing his work against Communist Mike Lawlor and how remarks by Robert Farago don’t quite measure up. Look, I have nothing against Robert, but I find him to be a rather strange bird. The e-mails I have exchanged with him eventually found Robert offering to let me write for TTAG as long as they got exclusive rights to the content for the first 48 hours (or some time), while he also seemed very reluctant to link and comment on anything I write on my own web site. I cannot possibly answer why he took this position. As I said, it seems rather odd to me.
Robert says of the Connecticut situation, “No matter how you look at it, this will not end well.” Oh, I’m not so sure about that. Perhaps I will begin praying imprecatory prayers against Mike Lawlor. Perhaps the collectivists in Connecticut will back down. Perhaps this will become a toothless law. Perhaps the first shooting or imprisonment of a gun owner will bring the house down on law enforcement in Connecticut. I can think of a number of good outcomes.
|
|
On February 14, 2014 at 3:58 pm, Billy Mullins said:
Why does a ruling by a FEDERAL court trump STATE law if the federal government is – as many believe – the federal government is the CHILD of the states? Forget about theories and what-ifs for a moment. Let’s look at it from a completely practical standpoint. If members of law enforcement in a state proceed to enforce the state statute allegedly “struck down” by a federal court, what response by the central (federal) government could be reasonably expected? What is the cost to the state that is likely to accrue? Would the feds send in elements of DoD to enforce the ruling? Would POTUS attempt to federalize that state’s contingent of the National Guard? What if the CO of that contingent simply refuses to obey POTUS’ order and instead orders all troops under his/her command to stand down?
It is an undeniable fact of life that there are, always have been, and always WILL BE more indians than chiefs. Even in an organization where 1 in 5 is a chief, that still leaves the indians with a 4 to 1 numerical advantage. I remember a story a former work mate told me. He had been drafted, assigned to the infantry and sent his to the Nam. As his platoon was on patrol one day, out in the middle of a rice paddy, they came under fire. Taking cover behind one of the dykes partitioning the paddy into smaller units, the Lieutenant discussed his next move with the platoon sergeant. The Lt. indicated he wanted to have the men haul ass over the dyke and assault the enemy’s positions. The sergeant respectfully disagreed citing likelihood of sustaining numerous casualties and even KIA. The NCO suggested radioing for an evac chopper and hunkering down until it arrived. The Lt. thanked his sergeant but said they were going over the top of the dyke and ordered that the word be passed that they were moving out. In a few moments, the Lt swung his arm over his shoulder, palm up and fingers extended, in the standard signal to move out. Somewhere down the line a single arm mimicked the Lt’s gesture but with only a single finger extended. The platoon stayed put. They radioed for evac and hunkered down behind the dyke, returning fire sporadically, until the evac chopper arrived. Everyone made it back to the base alive and no charges were ever filed.
On February 14, 2014 at 6:40 pm, scott s. said:
The Federal Govt is not a “child” of the states. It was created by “We the People”. USCONS VI/2 “Laws of the United States…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” And USCONS VI/3 “Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers…of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution…”
This kind of problem was discussed by Martin Van Buren (then VP to Jackson) who acknowledged that there was a tension between the powers of the states and federal government and there was no referee. His solution was the Article V method, as recently suggested by Mark Levin “Liberty Amendments”.
On February 15, 2014 at 6:50 pm, Billy Mullins said:
If a state – or a group of states – deem the federal government to have exceeded its allotted powers and/or failed to discharge the duties and responsibilities for which those powers were originally granted, that/those state(s) have a duty to refuse to obey the offending federal mandate. Some (perhaps many) will respond that the issue of states’ supremacy was settled in the War Between the States. To that I would respond that the member states of the CSA were repatriated only under force of arms. I am not a lawyer but I have heard that is a principle of common law that no compact made under duress is enforceable. If the people of one or more states decide to contest the compact it is their right by law and precedent predating the advent of the Constitution. In such an instance it is axiomatic that the central government will contest the decision of that/those state(s).
This is all very theoretical. In my comment I was speaking in practical terms.Theoretical situations aside, no act is illegal unless the person committing it is successfully prosecuted for their actions. If one or more states, believing themselves to be superior to the federal government and pass laws nullifying one or more federal statutes, then the nullification holds until and unless the federal government forces the state(s) to knuckle under. If the “authorities” in Mordor on the Potomac do not appreciate the people of the states deciding for themselves what constitutes exceeding the authority originally ceded to the federal then they are welcome attempt to bring the “offending” state(s) to heel.
A final note. For over a century the federal government has been on a course hell bent upon changing the fundamental relationship between the central government and the several states. It has been almost 150 years since the two sides in the debate over who is sovereign – the states or the central government – last engaged in more than verbal conflict. At that time the central government prevailed. A multitude of changes have come about since that time. The outcome of such a contest today could very well be different.