Possible SCOTUS case that address NYS and CA new laws

[John Stark]

Cops get qualified immunity. Legislators just plain have immunity.

They could pass a law re-instating prima-nocta and nothing would happen.

What's worse is that there are cops who'd come to drag your new wife off and say "tell it to the judge".

Reductio ad absurdum really is my favorite logical tool, as it reduces things down to the point that the nonsense is there for anyone with eyes to see.

I used a similar argument as yours many years ago.

I took some pre-law classes as an undergrad. The idea that the law is malleable and flexible, and that it is not informed by any kind of moral standard, was the de facto position of both the "professor" and the "students." I use the scare quotes because both the prof and the learners did nothing but regurgitate the "accepted wisdom." Living Document garbage, deconstruction of language, reader derived meaning of any given text (i.e., literary claptrap meant to deal with symbolism and metaphor, not legal documents or instruments), was the rage then, coupled with a small "t" notion of Truth; i.e., there are no universal Truths, only small truths that depend strictly on the cultural and social context of any given civilization.

So while these people were talking about "Constitutional" law and how it was divorced from the reality of the historical/grammatical approach to interpretation, how it didn't really matter what the men who wrote the Constitution thought about it or said it mean, or what the proper use of English grammar had, I asked a simply question:

What if a Constitutional Amendment was put forth and pushed through the process to make the rape of a woman legal, without punishment for the perpetrator?

Now remember, this is a few decades ago while feminism was still kosher, people knew what a woman was (although the definition of a man was already blurry at that point), and we were also supposed to worship at the Great Altar of Femininity and kiss the proverbial ring (let your imagination run wild with what I mean by that!).

Eyes glazed, brows furrowed, gears began to grind. Thought bubbles of "does not compute" were hanging in the air of almost everyone in the room.

Then the retorts came, and I was of course a villain for even thinking such thoughts.

Oddly the refrain almost invariably was, "That would be WRONG!" and "It would violate the Rights of women!" The female professor turned green and stammered incoherently.

The obvious foolishness and wickedness of the question drew out not just their ire, but the fact that they were utter hypocrites in the way they talked about US law. Women had Rights dammit!

So then I asked: What basis did they have to assert those Rights if men were to pass a Constitutional amendment that stripped women of Equal Rights right along with the one that legalized rape?

Unfortunately, not a single person there would admit that there might have been a flaw in both their legal and moral beliefs and thinking.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

If nobody will stop him, then the legislator has defacto immunity.

The cops show up with a warrant for your wife, do you shoot them, or let them take her ?

If you shoot them, do you think anyone in our current government is going to say "they had it coming" ?

If he rapes her, but the prosecutor refuses to indict, what do you do ?

I get your example, I really do, and I get your point.

And please understand, it is a defeatist example.

It's nothing less than a piece of paracord that keeps an elephant from escaping. You know the story, it only works because *they* taught you that you'd fail.

I will suggest that your despondency only leads to a pile of soap dishes. Grab a shot of Rye, my friend. This is perhaps one of the greatest love stories ever told.

I'm inspired to to apply for a "pistol permit" just so that some fucking judenrat has to read this story and shit himself when he reviews this post in my "social media".

Thursday, March 20, 2014​

An Open Letter to the Legislatures of New Jersey and Rhode Island: Are you seriously proposing to have your own skulls turned into soap dishes?​

Aunt Jenny Brooks.

To the legislators of the states of New Jersey and Rhode Island, upon the approach of your votes for firearm confiscation:

The firearm owners of your respective states tell me that you are busy men and women with short attention spans so I will try to make this brief, beginning with an instructive story from the history of my adopted state, Alabama. Some still tell it with pride in the hills of north Alabama. Like all the best stories, it has the advantage of being true.

In 1863, eight duly sworn and appointed law officers of the state government, acting with the authority of their nation's congress, executed a search of the homestead of one Henry Brooks. They were there searching for Brooks' son who was evading the draft and to execute the tax-in-kind law, which stated that everyone, no matter how poor, had to support the national government, even if that meant having half their crop and farm animals stolen for government purposes. At the homestead were Brooks, his wife Jenny and their eight children. The oldest son was just 17 and was hiding in the barn. The youngest was suckling at his mother's breast. The men disarmed the Brooks at gunpoint and commenced their work. In order to find out where the eldest son was, the Confederate Home Guard posse put a rope around Henry's neck, threw it over a limb of the tree in their front yard and slowly raised and lowered him, torturing him for the whereabouts of his son as the entire family was forced to watch.

Shortly, the oldest boy could take no more and charged the men in a hopeless sally from the barn. He was shot to death. Henry Brooks, still hanging from the rope and strangling to death, was shot as well. The lawful and duly sworn search party then rode away. They were laughing as they left.

Had they understood who they were messing with, they wouldn't have been laughing. Jenny lowered her husband's body from the tree, laid it out beside that of her oldest son, and had all of her sons place their hands in the blood on their daddy's chest (or, in the case of the baby, she placed it there herself). She then had them swear a blood oath that they would not rest until all eight men were dead. This began a feud that lasted forty years, the last shots of which were fired in McCurtain County, Oklahoma in 1904. By that time seven of the eight "law officers" were dead, as well as no less than twenty-four others who got in the way of the Brooks' and their quarry. (The eighth disappeared, leaving his family and all his property behind, apparently changed his name and was never seen in these parts again.)

What does this have to do with you? Well, I'm getting to that. Stick with me here.

Jenny, a full-blooded Cherokee girl whose family had avoided the Trail of Tears by hiding up in the mountains, loved her dead husband. She demonstrated the depth of that love by ambushing the leader of the lawful posse a couple months later, shooting him off his horse as he rode out alone from his own home. She then dragged his body into the woods, cut the "lawman's" head clean off, put it in a tote sack, took it home and put it in the lye boiling pot, cooking it until all that was left was the man's skull, minus the jawbone. She then turned it upside down, put it on the sideboard and used it as a soap dish the rest of her life, right up until the day she died many, many years later.

Of course, Jenny lost all of her boys but one and several sons-in-law in the forty year feud, but she counted that as a part of life. In later years she would relate how proud she was of her boys "dyin' with their boots on" and how she had taught them all to shoot straight.

Again you will be asking impatiently, "What does this have to do with me?" Just this. The eight duly sworn and appointed law officers didn't understand, nor did they care to understand, just exactly who it was that they were messing with. They were "the law" and "the law" had to be obeyed. What they didn't understand in the arrogance of their ignorance was that they too were in violation of a law -- the ironclad and non-repealable Law of Unintended Consequences. This is a mistake that you too -- at this moment in history -- are on the cusp of making.

Like the senate and legislature of Connecticut, you are about to pass more onerous laws robbing heretofore law-abiding firearm owners of their God-given, inalienable and natural rights to liberty, property and life -- rights that the United States Constitution merely codifies. These rights do not come from the Constitution, and they certainly do not come from you by your permission. They are not subject to majority vote. They just ARE. The Connecticut authorities are discovering to their chagrin that fully 85% of the firearm owners that their draconian law was aimed at ARE REFUSING TO COMPLY. More than a few have made up their minds to resist any confiscation -- law or no law -- even if that means defending themselves from state violence at the point of their rifles. As I pointed out in a speech on the steps of the Connecticut capitol last April, when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote. (1)

You see, like those eight duly sworn and appointed law officers, you mistake the people you seek to victimize. Yes, they have put up with previous restrictions you have passed. They backed up, grumbling, but they backed up. However, many of these folks, with a huge sense of grievance brought about by decades of being pushed back from the free exercise of their traditional liberties by the likes of you, are ready to themselves push back. The thing is, Connecticut has now ventured into this undiscovered country as blithely as uncomprehending deaf and blind folks tap dancing in a mine field. For as I tried to explain to them, they (and you) live in a different century than Jenny Brooks. Had Jenny understood the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, she would have sent her boys to kill the Confederate Governor of the state of Alabama and his political minions -- not to mention the Confederate congressmen who passed the despotic laws and the newspaper editors who endorsed them. For 4th Generation Warfare understands that the way to defeat an enemy is to directly engage the war makers and decision takers. Win the war there, and the raid parties stop coming. (2) This is the reality of war in the 21st Century -- this is the reality of the civil war you risk by pushing people you barely understand who have decided in their own minds that they will be pushed no longer.

Ask yourself, if Connecticut has an 85% non-compliance rate, what will the rate be in New Jersey? In Rhode Island? Do you think that your fellow citizens are more meek that Connecticut's? Are they more willing to have their rights torn away just because you say so? I doubt it. In case you hadn't noticed, civil wars -- such as you now propose to ignite -- haven't gotten any more civilized since Jenny Brooks' century. Indeed, they have grown more savage. And here you are, like the Confederate Congress, about to pass laws that will bring parties of armed men ready to dole out state-sponsored violence in furtherance of your tyrannical appetites to the doors of people who already feel disenfranchised, marginalized, mocked and scorned. Do you seriously think that after the first folks are killed in the name of your "benevolent intentions" that your victims won't come looking for you? Do you think that -- after you have killed their kith and kin -- you are immune from such people making a soap dish out of your skull just because you were elected by the constituents of your district and that the "law" was passed according to democratic forms? Do you imagine that there is a green zone within which you could hide from the future Jenny Brooks that your tyranny will have made?

It is an established principle of American jurisprudence that an unconstitutional law is null and void. Connecticut has passed such a law and is apparently intent upon rushing it into action before the Supreme Court can rule upon upon it. I have urged them to suspend enforcement until that time. (3) They have ignored me. The fact that I can later say that I tried to warn them to prevent civil war will be cold comfort. But don't you think that it would be the better part of valor for your respective states to at least wait to see if Connecticut ends up killing people under a law that was later ruled to be null and void by the Supremes?

I really would like to avoid another civil war in this country. I hope you agree with me. Do not extrapolate from your own cowardice and think for one moment that these people who you scarcely understand and secretly despise would be willing to merely roll over at the first threat of state-sponsored violence as you would. There remain in this country people who are willing to die for their principles. Such people are most often willing to kill in righteous self-defense of those principles as well. American history demonstrates that it is best not to push such people too far, lest they push back, fully and in kind.

To ignore that truth is to go whistling past Jenny Brooks' soap dish. Kinda makes your scalp itch, doesn't it?

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh

PO Box 926

Pinson AL 35126

To the point:

Jenny lived on into her nineties, outliving all her sons, and in later years converted to Christianity and became known by the honorific of Aunt Jenny. She did many good works for the poor in Winston County, and when she was dying hundreds of her church friends and extended family gathered around her cabin to pay homage to the woman who had become the patron saint of the mountain Unionists. When the moment of her passing was near, her pastor asked Jenny if there was anything else they could do for her, anything else she wanted, fishing, probably, for a confession of her sins.

"Yes," she said weakly, "I'd like to wash my hands." And so they brought Jenny a pan of water and her soap dish and she washed her hands one last time in that murderer's brain pan before she crossed over to meet God.

90+ years old, STILL in vengeance of her dead husband.

We beg the govt to abide the (valid) laws. We do so because we know what happens when they forsake those laws.

If he rapes her, but the prosecutor refuses to indict, what do you do ?

A reasonable person would wash their hands.

 

[speedkills27]

I get your example, I really do, and I get your point.

And please understand, it is a defeatist example.

It's nothing less than a piece of paracord that keeps an elephant from escaping. You know the story, it only works because *they* taught you that you'd fail.

I will suggest that your despondency only leads to a pile of soap dishes. Grab a shot of Rye, my friend. This is perhaps one of the greatest love stories ever told.

I'm inspired to to apply for a "pistol permit" just so that some fucking judenrat has to read this story and shit himself when he reviews this post in my "social media".




To the point:


90+ years old, STILL in vengeance of her dead husband.

We beg the govt to abide the (valid) laws. We do so because we know what happens when they forsake those laws.



A reasonable person would wash their hands.

I miss that blog

 

[Blimey]

At this point I'm questioning if Bruen did anything. I mean really did anything. After the decision states have gotten even more bold with gun control and the only way to fight it is to take it to court which we all know takes years to make any meaningful progress. But at the end, and if it is in our favor you're literally just back to square 1. There still haven't been any wins though either. I guess you could call the EPA thing a win but the ATF seems to be as tyrannical as ever. We can sit back now and say oh that's a good case and that's a cool one but until there are wins and actual enforcement of those decisions we really haven't progressed.

Oh it did something. One step up, two steps back.

As a concealed permit holder i now have less freedom than I did before. The training and other requirements to renew or get permits are onerous.

scotus could have preempted ny by setting some basic criteria like a permit can’t take more than two months to issue, etc. nothing whatsoever from New York requiring a Two week training course to get a license. Or six months.

At the very least they should have defined what a public space is to stop ny from its trickery on that point.

 

[ManualF150]

Oh it did something. One step up, two steps back.

As a concealed permit holder i now have less freedom than I did before. The training and other requirements to renew or get permits are onerous.

scotus could have preempted ny by setting some basic criteria like a permit can’t take more than two months to issue, etc. nothing whatsoever from New York requiring a Two week training course to get a license. Or six months.

At the very least they should have defined what a public space is to stop ny from its trickery on that point.

Hochul and all saw this as an opportunity to play hardball. Maybe they thought she wouldn't do this? Not sure... OR it was planned/rigged this way to slow things down a bit from the masses getting pistol permits like candy from a candy dispenser.

A Right Delayed is a Right Denied. ---- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

We'll have to see what happens this week.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Guess it's time to file another suit. The EPA decision wasn't enough. 2 or 3 suits should be enough right?

ATF Hitting homes looking for FRT so called machine gun trigger ..

nygunforum.com

 

[spat]

I get your example, I really do, and I get your point.

And please understand, it is a defeatist example.

It's nothing less than a piece of paracord that keeps an elephant from escaping. You know the story, it only works because *they* taught you that you'd fail.

I will suggest that your despondency only leads to a pile of soap dishes. Grab a shot of Rye, my friend. This is perhaps one of the greatest love stories ever told.

I'm inspired to to apply for a "pistol permit" just so that some fucking judenrat has to read this story and shit himself when he reviews this post in my "social media".




To the point:


90+ years old, STILL in vengeance of her dead husband.

We beg the govt to abide the (valid) laws. We do so because we know what happens when they forsake those laws.



A reasonable person would wash their hands.

Paging Mr Bowman, Paging Mr Henry Bowman....