Thread: D.C. grabs guns from soldier

Originally Posted by Thunder

and again, where does it say that they get to decide for themselves what is unConstitutional?

In the same place that it says that federal judges get to decide for themselves what is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Somerville

So you argue that every government employee should be able to interpret Constitutional law while at the same time admitting that various jurists in the past have made interpretations you disagree with.


You know - maybe that "plain as day" language isn't all that clear when one needs to apply it to specific instances. It just might be the reason some folks spend years studying Constitutional Law.

as have I and have lectured on it at several accredited law schools.

so tell us, was the COMMERCE CLAUSE designed as an escape valve for the limitations acknowledged by the Tenth Amendment?

Originally Posted by jamesrage

Those who **** on rights described in the constitution should be locked up for several years and then exiled to the worst country on the planet. There is no excuse for denying a man his right to keep and bear arms,especially when it is a right that specifically says shall not infringe at the end of it.

EDITORIAL: D.C. grabs guns from soldier - Washington Times
The District grabbed the guns belonging to 1st Lt. Augustine Kim and won’t give them back. Two years ago, the South Carolina Army national guardsman had been injured on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Now he’s fighting to restore his constitutional rights.
Before deploying overseas, the soldier drove his collection - which included an AR-15, a Beretta 9mm and several .45 caliber pistols - to his parents’ house in New Jersey for safe storage. Upon his return to the states and recovery, Lt. Kim wanted to bring his weapons back to his home in Charleston. On the way, he stopped at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Northwest Washington for a doctor’s appointment. That’s when his troubles started.
Lt. Kim became lost in the city and was pulled over. The cops asked Lt. Kim if they could search his vehicle. The lieutenant agreed because his guns were cased and stored in full compliance with federal firearm-transport laws.”I told them I had been under the impression that as long as the guns were locked in the back, with the ammunition separate, that I was allowed to transport them,” Lt. Kim told The Washington Times. “They said, ‘That may be true, however, since you stopped at Walter Reed, that makes you in violation of the registration laws.’ “
It is illegal to possess a firearm anywhere in the District other than the home. He was handcuffed and brought back to police headquarters, and his guns were confiscated as evidence.

As usual those who are law abiding are the only ones who will follow the law. And evidently the only ones who the police can catch. Shameful.

What is missed in all this puffery from Blunder about how this is somehow OK is the fact that the charges were completely dismissed and Lt Augustine was cleared. At that point the continuing hold that DC has on his guns is a violation of his 5th amendment rights as well as theft and should be considered as such. The police chief should be held liable for any damage to or missing items and if not returned prosecuted for said theft of firearms under DC's own laws. The irony of the position the chief finds himself in is classic.

They should have been returned in a timely manner and this would never have been an issue, but DC in their ever lasting hyper fear of guns in the hands of the law abiding brought this on them selves.

Originally Posted by mtlhdtodd

What is missed in all this puffery from Blunder about how this is somehow OK is the fact that the charges were completely dismissed and Lt Augustine was cleared. At that point the continuing hold that DC has on his guns is a violation of his 5th amendment rights as well as theft and should be considered as such. The police chief should be held liable for any damage to or missing items and if not returned prosecuted for said theft of firearms under DC's own laws. The irony of the position the chief finds himself in is classic.

They should have been returned in a timely manner and this would never have been an issue, but DC in their ever lasting hyper fear of guns in the hands of the law abiding brought this on them selves.

the police chief should be stripped of his badge and thrown into jail for possessing firearms that moved in interstate commerce and were stolen

3 years would be about right.

Every time I drove around the I-495 with a glock and about 50 bullets under the bunk in the sleeper I was like, "I wonder how many laws and company policies I am breaking? Oh well, sure beats being raped and/or robbed in one of these inner city hellholes, or a Louisiana rest area hahaha." It added a little excitement to an otherwise extremely boring job.

Originally Posted by Centinel

In the same place that it says that federal judges get to decide for themselves what is unconstitutional.

"At this point, I'm just having a little fun with Thunder. I don't think he can wrap his head around the fact that government officials are actually supposed to use their grey matter to determine whether or not something is constitutional."

My bad for thinking you took this discussion seriously.

Originally Posted by Thunder

"At this point, I'm just having a little fun with Thunder. I don't think he can wrap his head around the fact that government officials are actually supposed to use their grey matter to determine whether or not something is constitutional."

My bad for thinking you took this discussion seriously.

Can you wrap your head around the fact that government officials are actually supposed to use their gray matter to determine whether or not something is constitutional?

Yup, this sure is fun, and I take it extremely seriously.

Originally Posted by Thunder

please show the part of the USC where it says Federal employees have the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws they consider to be unConstitutional.

thanks.

It doesn't. The President controls the execution of law and thus may do so as he sees fit. If the Legislature doesn't like it, they can use the Courts to force proper enforcement.

Originally Posted by Centinel

It says they must take an oath to uphold the constitution, and once they have sworn this oath and taken office, they are duty bound to refuse to violate the constitution. You can read, can you not? What else could the language possibly mean?

If the federal government were to pass a law that was in blatant violation of the constitution, it would be the duty of judges, governors, and sheriffs in the several states to refuse to enforce it, and possibly prohibit federal agents from acting illegally against their citizens.

If the congress were to pass an illegal act, it would be the responsibility of the president to refuse to execute said illegal act.

The language is plain and direct. Every executive, legislative, and judicial officer must swear to uphold the constitution.

Exactly, there was a reason why the government was broken up into 3 pieces. Each with checks and balances over the other.