Things I ponder while not sleeping.

[Darksideblues42]

With the flurry of new firearms laws being passed across the country, I would like to take a moment to ask what the consequences are for the legislators and governors who create these bills and sign them into law if the laws are found to be unconstitutional?

Shouldn't they face some sort of penalty for advancing legislation which does not pass constitutional muster?

Since they are supposed to be the folks who should know what is constitutional or not when they create the laws, shouldn't they be held accountable with fines, immediate prohibition on holding public office, or some other form of rebuke or admonishment?

It just seems fair.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

Held accountable??

 

[greencobra]

this is exciting! it's like we're some d.c. think tank now.

 

[Broc]

With the flurry of new firearms laws being passed across the country, I would like to take a moment to ask what the consequences are for the legislators and governors who create these bills and sign them into law if the laws are found to be unconstitutional?

Shouldn't they face some sort of penalty for advancing legislation which does not pass constitutional muster?

Since they are supposed to be the folks who should know what is constitutional or not when they create the laws, shouldn't they be held accountable with fines, immediate prohibition on holding public office, or some other form of rebuke or admonishment?

It just seems fair.

1. There is no flurry of new firearm laws outside of the 5 or 6 States that are constantly b*tching about guns and trying to f*ck with people. The rest of the country is greener than it has been in the past 60 - 100 years (with the exception of maybe machineguns and a couple of things at the Fed level).

2. If you have to ask about accountability for unconstitutional laws, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[EJFudd]

With the flurry of new firearms laws being passed across the country, I would like to take a moment to ask what the consequences are for the legislators and governors who create these bills and sign them into law if the laws are found to be unconstitutional?

Shouldn't they face some sort of penalty for advancing legislation which does not pass constitutional muster?

Since they are supposed to be the folks who should know what is constitutional or not when they create the laws, shouldn't they be held accountable with fines, immediate prohibition on holding public office, or some other form of rebuke or admonishment?

It just seems fair.

Agree 100%. They should be forced to resign at a minimum. More serious punishments should be considered.

 

[paul73]

or some other form of rebuke or admonishment

used to be. but not anymore.

 

[Broc]

Agree 100%. They should be forced to resign at a minimum. More serious punishments should be considered.

Thst would be almost impossible because they could show they consulted with experts and it passed the experts opinions, now you cant fire them.

This could be solved if it was easier to challenge laws.

A new law passes, as soon as someone files a lawsuit against it, the law is put on hold (no waiting for a judge to do that). Allow up to a certain number of lawsuits to be filed, if they all fail, the law goes into effect.

Something like that.

It is total BS that a law can be passed in a matter of days but the courts can take years and in the meantime people can go to jail for something that is ruled unconstitutional later.

If the courts take years, so should new laws. More checks and balances.

This could generate some problems (nothing is perfect), like a political party passing a law and getting someone to file a sh*t lawsuit that will fail. But that could also be done today and I haven't heard of proof it is happening.

 

[whacko]

With the flurry of new firearms laws being passed across the country, I would like to take a moment to ask what the consequences are for the legislators and governors who create these bills and sign them into law if the laws are found to be unconstitutional?

Shouldn't they face some sort of penalty for advancing legislation which does not pass constitutional muster?

Since they are supposed to be the folks who should know what is constitutional or not when they create the laws, shouldn't they be held accountable with fines, immediate prohibition on holding public office, or some other form of rebuke or admonishment?

It just seems fair.

What flurry of anti 2a laws have passed?

 

[whacko]

Thst would be almost impossible because theu could show they consulted with experts and it passed the experts opinions, now you cant fire them.

This could be solved if it was easier to challenge laws.

A new law passes, as soon as someone files a lawsuit against it, the law is put on hold (no waiting for a judge to do that). Allow up to a certain number of lawsuits to be filed, if they all fail, the law goes into effect.

Something like that.

It is total BS that a law can be passed in a matter of days but the courts can take years and in the meantime people can go to jail for something that is ruled unconstitutional later.

If the courts take years, so should new laws. More checks and balances.

This could generate some problems (nothing is perfect), like a political party passing a law and getting someone to file a sh*t lawsuit that will fail. But that could also be done today and I haven't heard of proof it is happening.

I've always been of the opinion that any law that passed both houses should be reviewed hy the Supreme Court before it goes to the president for signature.

 

[EJFudd]

1. There is no flurry of new firearm laws outside of the 5 or 6 States that are constantly b*tching about guns and trying to f*ck with people.

It's more like a dozen states so far (2022-2023) according to leftist score-keeper CNN... and that's not even including what's coming down the pike soon for Massachusetts. I find it hard to get really excited about the pro-2A free states becoming freer when I am stuck here behind enemy lines here in Maura & Andrea's world waiting for the other shoe to drop. Not gonna be pretty.

 

[Broc]

It's more like a dozen states so far (2022-2023) according to leftist score-keeper CNN... and that's not even including what's coming down the pike soon for Massachusetts. I find it hard to get really excited about the pro-2A free states becoming freer when I am stuck here behind enemy lines here in Maura & Andrea's world waiting for the other shoe to drop. Not gonna be pretty.

You should get excited because it means your options, if you want to move, increase. It also means the anti-2A movement is failing in over half the country.

As far as the few anti-2A States; it might not be that bad. Their extreme bullsh*t is causing courts to shut down their BS which further strengthens the 2A. While it s*cks for the people living in those States, looking at the big picture it might be helping - as messed up as that sounds.

 

[Retired-LEO]

With the flurry of new firearms laws being passed across the country, I would like to take a moment to ask what the consequences are for the legislators and governors who create these bills and sign them into law if the laws are found to be unconstitutional?

Shouldn't they face some sort of penalty for advancing legislation which does not pass constitutional muster?

Since they are supposed to be the folks who should know what is constitutional or not when they create the laws, shouldn't they be held accountable with fines, immediate prohibition on holding public office, or some other form of rebuke or admonishment?

It just seems fair.

You are right. Any politician that violates their OATH and The Constitution should be removed from office and disbarred if they are licensed to practice law. Yet in this corrupt country... Nothing ever happens.

 

[Snora]

Since they are supposed to be the folks who should know what is constitutional or not when they create the laws,

Yes every elected official is a constitutional scholar and legal expert.

 

[LT5]

State pols should be salaried at the average income for their state.
Federal pols should be salaried at the average income for the country.
Anyone who proposes a law ruled unconstitutional gets 15 years in prison. Anyone who supports that law gets 10 years in prison.








I should have a line out my front door of beautiful blondes with big boobies and asses that taste like French vanilla ice cream for coming up with the above solution.

We need a toe tapping emoji.

 

[Darksideblues42]

What flurry of anti 2a laws have passed?

Washington just passed a group of laws, as did Illinois, Oregon did a few months ago, and Delaware did towards the end of last year as well. California is trying again, but waiting for
Miller v. Bonta to be decided.

 

[s&w3913]

1. There is no flurry of new firearm laws outside of the 5 or 6 States that are constantly b*tching about guns and trying to f*ck with people. The rest of the country is greener than it has been in the past 60 - 100 years (with the exception of maybe machineguns and a couple of things at the Fed level).

2. If you have to ask about accountability for unconstitutional laws, you haven't been paying attention.

Exactly.. I keep telling people up in Massachusetts... those NY style restriction laws are coming. I am VERY surprised that the rule of a posted sign law doesn't apply in MA.... all kinds of fun stupid laws coming. I don't have proof but it always seems NY/CT and even CA are in a competition with MA.

My family wants me to move back to MA.... long story short... my relatives moved from MA-NC the back to NC-MA... because of weed. I don't like weed... but they want legal weed and I want legal unrestricted guns. While NC isn't the bastion of gun rights compared to other states its much better then MA. I can shoot cans in my rural back yard and no one calls the cops... I can open carry etc.. Guns are accepted down here and not taboo as long as your not a buffoon... also guns unite all backgrounds.

 

[Echo 225]

instant felon with the stroke of a pen in the not to distance future , I hope I don’t lose them on my next fishing trip

 

[mu2bdriver]

Yes every elected official is a constitutional scholar and legal expert.

Barack was paraded around as a constitutional scholar and expert. Every since a little infringement was accepted, for any issue, that opens the floodgates to legislation of any variety.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Yes every elected official is a constitutional scholar and legal expert.

I don't expect that they are all scholars and experts, but they should do their due diligence to confirm constitutionality at a bare minimum.
Heller and Bruen being pretty damn clear, ZERO of these new laws should be allowed under the totality of these rulings.

 

[EJFudd]

You should get excited because it means your options, if you want to move, increase. It also means the anti-2A movement is failing in over half the country.

As far as the few anti-2A States; it might not be that bad. Their extreme bullsh*t is causing courts to shut down their BS which further strengthens the 2A. While it s*cks for the people living in those States, looking at the big picture it might be helping - as messed up as that sounds.

Okay, I'll try to be happier for the people out there in the free states. But it's kind of like being in prison and trying to be happier for those on the outside. It's not that satisfying.

Everyone says move away and God bless those for whom that is a practical option. Simply not so for a lot of us.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Okay, I'll try to be happier for the people out there in the free states. But it's kind of like being in prison and trying to be happier for those on the outside. It's not that satisfying.

Everyone says move away and God bless those for whom that is a practical option. Simply not so for a lot of us.

I'll go one further - we are sort of like Tina Turner when she was happy Ike didn't beat her as much or as badly any more.

 

[Broc]

Okay, I'll try to be happier for the people out there in the free states. But it's kind of like being in prison and trying to be happier for those on the outside. It's not that satisfying.

Everyone says move away and God bless those for whom that is a practical option. Simply not so for a lot of us.

You focus on one State, I focus on the big picture.

 

[FalArAk]

With the flurry of new firearms laws being passed across the country, I would like to take a moment to ask what the consequences are for the legislators and governors who create these bills and sign them into law if the laws are found to be unconstitutional?

Shouldn't they face some sort of penalty for advancing legislation which does not pass constitutional muster?

Since they are supposed to be the folks who should know what is constitutional or not when they create the laws, shouldn't they be held accountable with fines, immediate prohibition on holding public office, or some other form of rebuke or admonishment?

It just seems fair.

The one and only thing politicians are concerned with is getting re-elected, nothing more and nothing less.

If raping donkeys is what gets votes, politicians would be raping donkeys every day and bragging about it on Twitter.

 

[VTski4x4]

If you take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then violate it, the next stop should be the tallest tree in town square.

 

[MAGA99]

You should get excited because it means your options, if you want to move, increase. It also means the anti-2A movement is failing in over half the country.

As far as the few anti-2A States; it might not be that bad. Their extreme bullsh*t is causing courts to shut down their BS which further strengthens the 2A. While it s*cks for the people living in those States, looking at the big picture it might be helping - as messed up as that sounds.

Kinda like the Rowe v wade deal. 100% the lefts fault.

Let them do it again!!

 

[SKumar]

Go back to sleep dude

 

[Skysoldier]

I leave in a free, blue state (New Mexico)

Our dumpy, c*** of a governor doesn't care about anything except trying to make this an abortion destination

Like I give f**k!

And I can have guns and weed!

 

[Joeldiaz]

Thst would be almost impossible because theu could show they consulted with experts and it passed the experts opinions, now you cant fire them.

This could be solved if it was easier to challenge laws.

A new law passes, as soon as someone files a lawsuit against it, the law is put on hold (no waiting for a judge to do that). Allow up to a certain number of lawsuits to be filed, if they all fail, the law goes into effect.

Something like that.

It is total BS that a law can be passed in a matter of days but the courts can take years and in the meantime people can go to jail for something that is ruled unconstitutional later.

If the courts take years, so should new laws. More checks and balances.

This could generate some problems (nothing is perfect), like a political party passing a law and getting someone to file a sh*t lawsuit that will fail. But that could also be done today and I haven't heard of proof it is happening.

While it is frustrating that the courts take a while, we should also be wary of wishing for the process to be sped up as it could very easily backfire. Who knows what the makeup of SCOTUS could be down the road. Just because SCOTUS is on our side today doesn’t mean they will be later on. We’re nearing another presidential election where it’s likely that Republicans will lose. Justice Thomas isn’t getting any younger after all, and Chief Justice Roberts is a 50/50 vote.

A future SCOTUS could overturn these pro-2A rulings just like Roe v. Wade was overturned. If the courts were sped up per our wishes in that scenario, we would have all of the hard work done to strengthen the 2A undone in a short timespan. Imagine the number of constitutional carry states dropping from 27 (and counting) to 0 virtually overnight. This lengthy process also benefits us as much as it hurts us.

 

[Uzi2]

The issue has already been codified in law, but nobody has the balls to enforce it to the hilt.​

This law doesn't exempt politicians, who in all actuality are the premier conspirators in the country.​

Every legislator should have to walk by a multi rope gallows as they walk into the front door of their workplace, just as a reminder that they are not above the law.​

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

 

[SpaceCritter]

The one and only thing politicians are concerned with is getting re-elected, nothing more and nothing less.

If raping donkeys is what gets votes, politicians would be raping donkeys every day and bragging about it on Twitter.

Not anymore.

That was the entire point of the cheat-a-rama exercises of 2020 and 2022. Once selected, they're in. They need only be gracious to those making the selection.