Welcome to Gulag Wisconsin
Oh, BOO HOO to Federales and retired police officers required to live like the serfs; i.e. without concealed firearms.
I love the reference by Peg "The Keg": [The federal] pre-emption of state and local concealed carry prohibitions is self-executing. Maybe if we put a copy of the Constitution at the bottom of the wine glass she might get around to reading it; especially that pesky 10th amendment part.
In a federated, constitutional republic, national laws could not preempt state and local laws. If such usurpation in federated Republic were tried the States would secede and/or the citizens would shoot the Nationalists encroaching on the self determination of the state. But that matter was settled in 1865, when citizens last tried to resist "with manly firmness [Nationalist] invasions on the rights of the people."
Now don't get me wrong, I believe 941.23 to be a violation of the Wisconsin State constitution. But, in 2001 the ladies on the supreme court, such a Justice Crooks, ruled in State v. Cole that you have to whine about your constitutional rights quickly or they are lost forever and lost to everyone. I think the law should have been declared void. Wisconsin then would adopt the <sarcasm>blood-soaked</sarcasm> concealed carry system which is in Vermont.
That said allowing jack-boots from the US Marshals, DEA, ATF, IRS, BLM, the rest of the alphabet soup and some retired municipal police officers an exemption from oppressive laws is worse. Perhaps living like the serfs in the state might soften their hearts toward freedom. One might even hope the flame of liberty might begin to burn in their bosoms as the indignities of serfdom wear on them.
In the mean time welcome to serfdom and I will enjoy a bit of guilty hohn.
As I have said before, I look forward to living in a free society sometime before my death. But, I will settle for the poor shadow; a constitutional republic where a written constitution "[delegates powers] ... to the .. Government [which] are few and defined [and where] those which are to remain in the [individual] are numerous and indefinite".
Clearly, James Madison underestimated the alleged dangers cited by the opponents of this country's second, current constitution.
I love the reference by Peg "The Keg": [The federal] pre-emption of state and local concealed carry prohibitions is self-executing. Maybe if we put a copy of the Constitution at the bottom of the wine glass she might get around to reading it; especially that pesky 10th amendment part.
In a federated, constitutional republic, national laws could not preempt state and local laws. If such usurpation in federated Republic were tried the States would secede and/or the citizens would shoot the Nationalists encroaching on the self determination of the state. But that matter was settled in 1865, when citizens last tried to resist "with manly firmness [Nationalist] invasions on the rights of the people."
Now don't get me wrong, I believe 941.23 to be a violation of the Wisconsin State constitution. But, in 2001 the ladies on the supreme court, such a Justice Crooks, ruled in State v. Cole that you have to whine about your constitutional rights quickly or they are lost forever and lost to everyone. I think the law should have been declared void. Wisconsin then would adopt the <sarcasm>blood-soaked</sarcasm> concealed carry system which is in Vermont.
That said allowing jack-boots from the US Marshals, DEA, ATF, IRS, BLM, the rest of the alphabet soup and some retired municipal police officers an exemption from oppressive laws is worse. Perhaps living like the serfs in the state might soften their hearts toward freedom. One might even hope the flame of liberty might begin to burn in their bosoms as the indignities of serfdom wear on them.
In the mean time welcome to serfdom and I will enjoy a bit of guilty hohn.
As I have said before, I look forward to living in a free society sometime before my death. But, I will settle for the poor shadow; a constitutional republic where a written constitution "[delegates powers] ... to the .. Government [which] are few and defined [and where] those which are to remain in the [individual] are numerous and indefinite".
Clearly, James Madison underestimated the alleged dangers cited by the opponents of this country's second, current constitution.
posted by John Washburn | 2:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home