denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000

[phenix]

I wish we could get GunLawyer to stop peddling Quilicci around like a badge for the promotion of the Legal Temprance Union by following every Quilicci with a Revere.

"A constitutional right is always worth fighting for but you have to pick the time and place of battle to ensure victory." Well that seems kind of improbable, doesn't it? Picking the time and place means you're missing many of those points on the 'always' continuum to fight for those constitutional rights. Your rights are infringed regularly and you did not pick the time and the place. We regularly pick no time and place to fight for them.

Didn't say that is the way it should be, just smart. You don't want a loss to keep working against you. That is why I'm in this position.

[MDJschool]

Didn't say that is the way it should be, just smart. You don't want a loss to keep working against you. That is why I'm in this position.

You're probably in this position because those before you didn't want a loss or to pay for their rights or the rights of all of us, and the people before them had excuses not to do the same. They probably also heard the great advice to pick their battles, to be moderate in asserting their rights, that you can't always beat the Man, etc. Between excuses and badgering... That you should have any record from DUIs in PA that are not specifically assaults are perfect evidence of this.

If you would just roll over and take it, we could all just get on happily with our lives, until one of us is the next victim, whom, not being us, will be poo-pooed away all the same. God bless.

[phenix]

You're probably in this position because those before you didn't want a loss or to pay for their rights or the rights of all of us, and the people before them had excuses not to do the same. They probably also heard the great advice to pick their battles, to be moderate in asserting their rights, that you can't always beat the Man, etc. Between excuses and badgering... That you should have any record from DUIs in PA that are not specifically assaults are perfect evidence of this.

If you would just roll over and take it, we could all just get on happily with our lives, until one of us is the next victim, whom, not being us, will be poo-pooed away all the same. God bless.

I won't roll over and take it, I will never give up. I am not a wealthy person. I have to pick the path I will survive/afford! I would love to set a precedent. I can’t afford it. Can you loan me the money? Good lawyers cost money. I’ve spent every spare moment of my time trying to figure this out. I’ve never given up on anything in my life. That is a fact!

[GunLawyer001]

I wish we could get GunLawyer to stop peddling Quilicci around like a badge for the promotion of the Legal Temprance Union by following every Quilicci with a Revere.

"A constitutional right is always worth fighting for but you have to pick the time and place of battle to ensure victory." Well that seems kind of improbable, doesn't it? Picking the time and place means you're missing many of those points on the 'always' continuum to fight for those constitutional rights. Your rights are infringed regularly and you did not pick the time and the place. We regularly pick no time and place to fight for them.

Quilicci is a clear example (well, it's clear to those willing and able to assess reality) of a half-assed fight that ended badly for gun owners, litigated pro se by a lawyer with more enthusiasm than understanding and wisdom. It was the wrong time, the wrong court, and the wrong arguments.

If you play chess, or command an army, or are raising teenagers, you should understand that you have to pick your battles if you wish to win the war. The technical term for those who ALWAYS want to fight ALL THE TIME is "losers". Without an understanding of the big picture and the reality of specific court biases, you can easily spend a lot of money to set a precedent that favors gn control.

In US v Miller, the court heard a case that was almost by definition the worst possible test of the NFA for us as gun owners. Miller disappeared, Miller's counsel didn't show, Miller was an unsympathetic criminal, and the Supreme Court was not in the mood to strike down any Federal laws. Not surprisingly to anyone not dwelling in a fantasy land, the govt won and we lost. And Miller was the only precedent on the 2nd Amendment and the NFA for the next 70 years.

If you think you deserve a raise, are you going to ask your boss first thing Monday morning after he's had a fight with his wife and he's got a toothache and his secretary lost some files and a big account? Or are you going to pick a time when he might actually say "yes"?

Enthusiasm with wisdom is a powerful force. Take away the wisdom, and enthusiasm is just a loose cannon killing friendlies on the gun deck.

[phenix]

Yeah, i want that attorney!

[PhillyVet]

..or "Quilicci".

If you pick the wrong time and the wrong court, you spend a whole lot of money to set a precedent that helps the other side.

You might also notice that nobody questions that the right to vote is an individual right, the right to liberty is an individual right, yet both of those can be Constitutionally stripped from criminals, and the liberty of the insane can be taken away, as long as there's sufficient due process. I suspect that the Court would allow some degree of infringement of the RKBA, particularly if Obama gets a 2nd term and appoints 2 or 3 of the justices.

Gunlawyer… you are correct that voting can be denied for conviction of a crime; however, it is the only right mentioned in the constitution that can be taken away. The 14th Amendment, Section 2 deals specifically with that subject.

I submit the argument regarding the “denial of life, liberty or property without due process”, that liberty in this context means physical liberty, I.E. the right to come, go and move about as you please; not being denied life or property without due process seems pretty self explanatory. Meaning that the denial of your liberty is the incarceration its self, and once you’ve been released (parole being a different legal situation based on contract law), your liberty is no longer being denied.

It can also be pointed out that during incarceration, courts have held that people can only be denied those civil rights necessary to the orderly and safe operation of the prison. For instance, freedom of speech can be denied in prison such that they can prohibit talking between prisoners in order to prevent crime, etc., however, they can’t prevent a prisoner from submitting written material to outside publications.

I argue that the right to not have liberty denied without due process was a direct result of summary incarceration at the direction of the nobles and government at the time of the revolution. It could be argued that the use of the word “liberty” in this context didn’t mean civil rights because, since the denial of their civil rights was legislated by parliament (and no constitution existed to prohibit parliament from doing exactly that), that due process had actually occurred in that respect.

This interpretation, I believe, is supported with the constitutional prohibition on Bills of Attainder. This prohibition stopped Congress from voting to incarcerate a specific person, but didn’t stop the executive branch from simply throwing someone in prison without due process. It can also be supported by the Navy’s use of the term “Liberty” which dates back to well before the revolution. In the Navy, a sailor is restricted to his ship (not unlike a penal prisoner) unless he has been granted “Liberty”, which in the Navy literally means the ability to leave the ship and go, and do, as you please until the “Liberty” was over.

Finally I think it’s a logical fallacy to believe that a law made subordinate to the Constitution can invalidate it (regardless of the mechanism). If that theory holds, then any right can be abolished by legislative sophistry. For instance, the 3rd Amendment prohibits the forced quartering of Troops in private homes and a law specifically requiring it would be ruled unconstitutional on its face; however, under this theory Congress could say “… anyone, having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than 6 months In prison, must quarter Soldiers in their homes upon demand…”. If the theory that civil rights can be “revoked” simply by affording Due Process, than this ridiculous example would be Constitutional.

Just some thoughts.

[phenix]

Gunlawyer… you are correct that voting can be denied for conviction of a crime; however, it is the only right mentioned in the constitution that can be taken away. The 14th Amendment, Section 2 deals specifically with that subject.

I submit the argument regarding the “denial of life, liberty or property without due process”, that liberty in this context means physical liberty, I.E. the right to come, go and move about as you please; not being denied life or property without due process seems pretty self explanatory. Meaning that the denial of your liberty is the incarceration its self, and once you’ve been released (parole being a different legal situation based on contract law), your liberty is no longer being denied.

It can also be pointed out that during incarceration, courts have held that people can only be denied those civil rights necessary to the orderly and safe operation of the prison. For instance, freedom of speech can be denied in prison such that they can prohibit talking between prisoners in order to prevent crime, etc., however, they can’t prevent a prisoner from submitting written material to outside publications.

I argue that the right to not have liberty denied without due process was a direct result of summary incarceration at the direction of the nobles and government at the time of the revolution. It could be argued that the use of the word “liberty” in this context didn’t mean civil rights because, since the denial of their civil rights was legislated by parliament (and no constitution existed to prohibit parliament from doing exactly that), that due process had actually occurred in that respect.

This interpretation, I believe, is supported with the constitutional prohibition on Bills of Attainder. This prohibition stopped Congress from voting to incarcerate a specific person, but didn’t stop the executive branch from simply throwing someone in prison without due process. It can also be supported by the Navy’s use of the term “Liberty” which dates back to well before the revolution. In the Navy, a sailor is restricted to his ship (not unlike a penal prisoner) unless he has been granted “Liberty”, which in the Navy literally means the ability to leave the ship and go, and do, as you please until the “Liberty” was over.

Finally I think it’s a logical fallacy to believe that a law made subordinate to the Constitution can invalidate it (regardless of the mechanism). If that theory holds, then any right can be abolished by legislative sophistry. For instance, the 3rd Amendment prohibits the forced quartering of Troops in private homes and a law specifically requiring it would be ruled unconstitutional on its face; however, under this theory Congress could say “… anyone, having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than 6 months In prison, must quarter Soldiers in their homes upon demand…”. If the theory that civil rights can be “revoked” simply by affording Due Process, than this ridiculous example would be Constitutional.

Just some thoughts.

Good thoughts. If I had the coin I would hire you Phillyvet, but I can't afford to go to the supreme court and win. The angry guy is right in a sense becuase I need to kiss ass a bit, but I will have my guns, then fight for my constitution (what I can afford $$$). I'd like to organize everyone under my situation, (DUI prior to 1972, third DUI. Non violent prohibiting M1's, etc.) to start a patition. Don't laugh, it could work.

[phenix]

You're probably in this position because those before you didn't want a loss or to pay for their rights or the rights of all of us, and the people before them had excuses not to do the same. They probably also heard the great advice to pick their battles, to be moderate in asserting their rights, that you can't always beat the Man, etc. Between excuses and badgering... That you should have any record from DUIs in PA that are not specifically assaults are perfect evidence of this.

If you would just roll over and take it, we could all just get on happily with our lives, until one of us is the next victim, whom, not being us, will be poo-pooed away all the same. God bless.

Angry guy: I'll start a petition if you'll get people to sign. My word!

[phenix]

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees to the people the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Petitions are also used to collect signatures to enable a candidate to get on a ballot or put an issue before the electorate. Petitions can serve as a way of pressuring elected officials to adhere to the position expressed by the petitioners

[PhillyVet]

As a quick follow-up to my earlier comments:

The left argue that the term “People” in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments mean the individual, however, somehow, in the 2nd means the state collectively. We on the other hand, argue that the term the People means the individual throughout the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd). Along that same note, the word “Right” appears 6 times throughout the BOR (1st, 2nd, 4th, 6, 7th & 9th) and always refers to something the individual is (god given) entitled to do.

The word “Liberty”, however, only appears once (in the 5th) and is never used to describe a specific Right. I submit that if the founders intended the 5th Amendment to mean that a person could lose his Rights after “due process of law” that they wouldn’t have used the word Liberty and instead would have written it “…nor be deprived of life, RIGHTS, or property, without due process of law…”