# Constitutional duty under oath



## Guest (Oct 28, 2007)

If the President of the United States proclaims martial law and the governor orders all legal firearms guaranteed under the constitution to be collected, is it a contradiction of the oath to "Defend the constitution" to round up all the weapons?


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

There was another poll like this one befor.
I will look for it.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

That was the one


----------



## id1811xecj (Jun 27, 2004)

I think the poll's wording puts it in the category of a "push poll."


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

Only a tyrannical government (or a gov't 100% in control of "liberals") would take arms from all citizens. Only a gov't afraid of its own people would enact laws or declare martial law to disarm the citizenry.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

MSP75 said:


> Only a tyrannical government (or a gov't 100% in control of "liberals") would take arms from all citizens. Only a gov't afraid of its own people would enact laws or declare martial law to disarm the citizenry.


We are in DANGER of that happening today with the likes of
the Kennedys,Kerrys,Bloomburgs of the world unless we stand
up for our rights.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

This is not a push poll. There is no motive for this poll other than to gather statistics. I was just going to post 3 url links showing how weapons were confiscated in New Orleans during Katrina, but I'm not allowed to because I havent made five posts yet, but you can find them on You Tube.

Thank you for your participation.


----------



## id1811xecj (Jun 27, 2004)

If your goal is really to collect statistics, this might be better working

Attempt to collect all legal firearms as ordered.
Refuse to collect them.

There right to bear arms is not unrestricted. I think that most of us would agree with restricting firearms to felons or mentally ill. By using the terms, "Defend the constitution and refuse to collect them," you are assuming the truth of your own conclusion. Our agents in New Orleans lawfully confiscated many firearms during Hurricane Katrina from drunken yahoos or people who shot at them or others. Enforcing a court order to confiscate firearms does not necessary violate the Constitution. The wording of your poll assumes it does.


----------



## id1811xecj (Jun 27, 2004)

Wolfman said:


> What about the numerous substantiated reports of firearms being confiscated from people in NO who were not drunk nor firing their weapons?
> 
> Are you also implying that if someone fires at a real or perceived threat (especially during times of emergency), their firearm should be confiscated? Kind of negates the whole purpose of having one in the first place, doesn't it?


It was a very fluid situation for law enforcement. Police were making difficult decisions under trying circumstances.

The people I am talking about had serious problems with threat perception. Firing at our agents in full raid gear is not acceptable and will definitely get you relieved of your firearm, as it should.


----------



## id1811xecj (Jun 27, 2004)

I assure you, NO was fluid. Didn't see too many prosecutions under 18 USC 242 in the District of Louisianna in 2005 did you? I wonder why. I am not anti gun but our society has chosen to put some limits on firearms. The right to bear arms is not absolute. Don't forget about that dependent clause in the2nd Amendment.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

id1811xecj said:


> It was a very fluid situation for law enforcement. Police were making difficult decisions under trying circumstances.
> 
> The people I am talking about had serious problems with threat perception. Firing at our agents in full raid gear is not acceptable and will definitely get you relieved of your firearm, as it should.


Fine, if the guns were confiscated as fruits or instruments of the crime of assaulting officers. If not, what is the justification?



id1811xecj said:


> I assure you, NO was fluid. Didn't see too many prosecutions under 18 USC 242 in the District of Louisianna in 2005 did you? I wonder why. I am not anti gun but our society has chosen to put some limits on firearms. The right to bear arms is not absolute. Don't forget about that dependent clause in the2nd Amendment.


Are you referring the ... well regulated militia...? The militia is today, what it was when the Second Amendment was ratified. Nothing has changed it. It is the people, generally.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

This is from the Massachusetts Constitution...

PART THE FIRST
_A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts._ 


Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Otto said:


> This is from the Massachusetts Constitution...
> 
> PART THE FIRST
> _A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants_
> ...


Which is over ruled by the US Constitution 2nd amendment.
Federal Law Rules


----------



## id1811xecj (Jun 27, 2004)

Otto said:


> Fine, if the guns were confiscated as fruits or instruments of the crime of assaulting officers. If not, what is the justification?
> 
> Are you referring the ... well regulated militia...? The militia is today, what it was when the Second Amendment was ratified. Nothing has changed it. It is the people, generally.


I don't think we confiscated any weapons outside those reason, although there may have been individual cases. I do not know what NOPD did.

If it was the people generally, why didn't the constitution say it. The people people is used elsewhere in the document. I think a plain meaning of militia, even in the context of the 18th century is more narrow than people. It certainly did not include women. Does that mean that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to women?



Wolfman said:


> Don't even start with the "militia" doublespeak. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, just like all the others in the Bill of Rights. The "militia" in the 1700's was far removed from what a person would define as a militia today, but that's a subject for another thread and I'm sure Killjoy will be around to teach that lesson. There was no due process in NO, and your line of thought *is *anti-gun, or at the least, anti-gun for citizens.


Why is that double speak? The drafters of our Constitution were certainly capable of writing: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
I would have no problem with that. I am generally pro gun. Unfortunately, they did not say that. They were not stupid people and they added a dependent clause which helps to explain their meaning in the main clause.

How can you say there was no due process in NO. The system worked. The NRA sought and obtained a restraining order. This was at a time when things were not normal.

I agree with you that a militia then is not the same as the National Guard today. I just don't think it means everyone has an unfettered right to a firearm.

I do love that no one is addressing my point that the poll used loaded language.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

kwflatbed said:


> Which is over ruled by the US Constitution 2nd amendment.
> Federal Law Rules


I am not sure of your point.

My point is that our state constitution does not even specifically mention the militia. It just says , "... for the common defence..."

_If it was the people generally, why didn't the constitution say it. The people people is used elsewhere in the document. I think a plain meaning of militia, even in the context of the 18th century is more narrow than people. It certainly did not include women. Does that mean that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to women?_

The Second Amendment ends with, "... the right of the people..."

In any case, I believe the "equal protection " clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would allow women the same rights as men.

The "Militia Act of 1789" required, "... all able bodied males... capable of bearing arms ..." to own a firearm, After its repeal or "sunsetting" the requirement of bearing arms dissolved, but the militia didn't.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Otto said:


> I am not sure of your point.
> 
> My point is that our state constitution does not even specifically mention the militia. It just says , "... for the common defence..."
> 
> ...


This one little piece of the Article XVII "consent of the legislature" our A-Hole politicians will and do use this against gun owners in Assachusetts.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2007)

id1811xecj said:


> I do love that no one is addressing my point that the poll used loaded language.


id,

I generally try to stay out of debates, but I will be glad to address any issue which you have with the polls language. I suppose that it is human nature to look for a hidden agenda. I assure you there is none. One forum member accused the poll of attacking Hillary Clinton as a candidate, and went right on in the next post saying it was an attack on GW Bush. If the language seems over simplified, it may be, but only because it's a simple question.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2007)

It warms my heart to to see my "assachusetts" phrase catching on.

I just wrote a reply to id, but somehow it didn't upload and is lost, so I will start over.

I usually don't get involved in the debates, but id, if you have questions about the wording of the poll I'll be glad to address them with you. There is no ulterior motive behind the question. It's not political , but it is constitutional, so I can not omit the word. One forum member accused me of setting up Hillary Clinton as a candidate with this poll, and in the next post said it was attacking George Bush. This forum has even gone into gender and I suppose it could be spun into Muslim, gay, or black hatred if someone is good enough at spinning. It's just a question. There are also two other option nobody is addressing, and a fifth, which is to not participate. It's not like I'm backing anyone into a corner. 

The results will be tabulated and posted on a website without spinning it, and afterwards, I'll even link the website here for all to see. The website "About us" even states that we are not politically affiliated or have any opinion on religions. 

Feel free to ask any questions without requiring me to debate. Thanks.


----------



## id1811xecj (Jun 27, 2004)

Wolfman said:


> Unfortunately, the Department of Justice disagrees with you as well...http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/21/104408.shtml


and the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th annd 10th Circuit Courts of appeals disagree
with you and the Justice Department.


----------



## id1811xecj (Jun 27, 2004)

With this split in the circuit courts, the Supreme Court will have to resolve it.


----------

