Illinois Decides To Go All In On Gun Ban

[IndyDave1776]

And If a private person chooses to write their congressman and ask that a "unconstitutional" law be passed, prompting the legislator to act, that would also be a treasonous act, worthy of death, correct?

Or how about simply talking about "how" a AWB should be passed for the benefit of the nation, although recognizing that it is "unconstitutional?" Is that treason, as well?

You are creating a very slippery slope, and I'm 100% confident that the founders would have found that your beliefs run contrary to freedom loving peoples.

Chatter is entirely different than a public official who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution willfully acting against it. If you don't understand that oath you need to look for a new job.

The fact that it is a credible threat and that it is a violation of that oath are hugely significant points that you, for some strange reason, are choosing to disregard.

 

[Captain Bligh]

In my admittedly simplistic view, this is treason.

Uh, not really. There is no levying war against the government or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. However distasteful it may be, it isn't treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."​

He needs to be impeached for not upholding the Constitution he took an oath on

I suspect that proposing legislation falls well short of an impeachable offense. Don't get me wrong. I don't favor the legislation, but proposing legislation -- or Constitutional amendments for that matter -- for the duly elected representatives of the people to vote upon is the way our country is supposed to work. There is nothing treasonous or impeachable about that. It seems it might be covered under this little phrase:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."​

Thus endeth today's Civics lesson.

 

[Unobogus]

THIS, is what I was thinking..... I thought that Il. were just told, that gun bans, are UN Constitutional, and they are going to have 180 days, to pass a RTC bill ?????

You are correct, but it looks like they are going ahead with this proposal anyway. It will be very difficult but if this does pass I'll have to look into moving to Indiana, I already work there so that does help. I can only hope that the bill will not pass and I won't have to worry about it.
Before anyone asks, yes I have been contacting my elected officials and I will continue to do so.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Uh, not really. There is no levying war against the government or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. However distasteful it may be, it isn't treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."​

I suspect that proposing legislation falls well short of an impeachable offense. Don't get me wrong. I'm don't favor the legislation, but proposing legislation -- or Constitutional amendments for that matter -- for the duly elected representatives of the people to vote upon is the way our country is supposed to work. There is nothing treasonous or impeachable about that. It seems it might be covered under this little phrase:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."​

Thus endeth today's Civics lesson.

I see two huge flaws in this argument. First, treason is committed ultimately against the Constitution, not the sitting government which is why oath is taken to the Constitution, not the president, congress, or any other occupier of office, power, or authority. Second, how is acting against the people in favor of enemies, foreign and domestic both, not treason? It does not state that those enemies must be nation-states acting overtly as in the case of a formally declared war.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Chatter is entirely different than a public official who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution willfully acting against it. If you don't understand that oath you need to look for a new job.

The fact that it is a credible threat and that it is a violation of that oath are hugely significant points that you, for some strange reason, are choosing to disregard.

So if a soldier (current or former), law enforcement officer (current or former), tax collector, probation officer, mayor, or any other public officials (ALL federal civilian employees are required to take an oath, and most state level) suggested an action that runs contrary to the Constitution they have committed treason?

According to your thinking, if a law is struck down as unconstitutional, then EVERY person that voted in favor of it, or enforced it, has committed treason, and should be rounded up and put to death. If you don't see how Third Reich-ish that is, then I don't know what to say.

 

[CitiusFortius]

... for now. this is pure unconstitutional fascist BS. if this passes, it'll wind up in the supreme court. once it hits that.. well, it'll either make or break the 2A.

Given the current makeup of the court, we should hope it gets there. Thus ensuring it will never happen in the future.

 

[chris46131]

and I'm 100% confident that the founders would have found that your beliefs run contrary to freedom loving peoples.

I'm very confident that the founders would judge very harshly any official that attempted to disarm this nation's citizens.

 

[cobber]

And If a private person chooses to write their congressman and ask that a "unconstitutional" law be passed, prompting the legislator to act, that would also be a treasonous act, worthy of death, correct?

Or how about simply talking about "how" a AWB should be passed for the benefit of the nation, although recognizing that it is "unconstitutional?" Is that treason, as well?

You are creating a very slippery slope, and I'm 100% confident that the founders would have found that your beliefs run contrary to freedom loving peoples.

It's not a slippery slope at all.

It's a bright line, like touching the third rail.

So if a soldier (current or former), law enforcement officer (current or former), tax collector, probation officer, mayor, or any other public officials (ALL federal civilian employees are required to take an oath, and most state level) suggested an action that runs contrary to the Constitution they have committed treason?

There's the pesky little problem that the States ratified the Constitution and Amendments. How about if an action runs contrary, amend the Constitution, if you can get the votes to do so? Otherwise it's not really the fundamental law of the land, but only applies where a particular officers says it does, in the manner he or she says it does. That sounds anarchic a bit.

 

[billmyn]

Chatter is entirely different than a public official who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution willfully acting against it. If you don't understand that oath you need to look for a new job.

The fact that it is a credible threat and that it is a violation of that oath are hugely significant points that you, for some strange reason, are choosing to disregard.

+1

 

[downzero]

In light of McDonald v. Chicago, and Moore v. Madigan, this idiocy has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being implemented.

Exactly. It is precisely this type of fear-mongering that makes gun owners look like sheep. On any other political issue, this would be looked at for what it was--political posturing.

I view it as no different than the house repealing Obamacare or politicians who talk about banning abortions.

I actually think that this sort of political posturing could really come back to haunt these people. There aren't too many examples of policy that is as much of a failure as gun control, and even people who support these dems on other issues might get pissed off if they engage in this sort of bs.

Everyone tends to think of politics as a 24 hour news cycle instead of considering what the house elections are going to be like in two years after all these politicians expressed support for more gun control. It's really hard to think of statements that dems could make that could backfire in their face to the level that gun grabbing can.

The American electorate might be ignorant, but it isn't stupid. This sort of bs grandstanding is going nowhere.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So if a soldier (current or former), law enforcement officer (current or former), tax collector, probation officer, mayor, or any other public officials (ALL federal civilian employees are required to take an oath, and most state level) suggested an action that runs contrary to the Constitution they have committed treason?

According to your thinking, if a law is struck down as unconstitutional, then EVERY person that voted in favor of it, or enforced it, has committed treason, and should be rounded up and put to death. If you don't see how Third Reich-ish that is, then I don't know what to say.

Damnit, those people do not have the authority to create law. Will you please stop the asinine exaggerations?

 

[Kutnupe14]

There's the pesky little problem that the States ratified the Constitution and Amendments. How about if an action runs contrary, amend the Constitution, if you can get the votes to do so? Otherwise it's not really the fundamental law of the land, but only applies where a particular officers says it does, in the manner he or she says it does. That sounds anarchic a bit.

I said suggested, not the actual implementation of law. But still, that does not address my premise. If a law has been struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional, then by defalt, all those that voted in favor or enforced it, have committed treason. It has already been indicated that those convicted of Treason are deserving of death.
You agree with this?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I said suggested, not the actual implementation of law. But still, that does not address my premise. If a law has been struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional, then by defalt, all those that voted in favor or enforced it, have committed treason. It has already been indicated that those convicted of Treason are deserving of death.
You agree with this?

That would most certainly motivate those introducing, voting on, or signing legislation to ask what is right rather than what they think they can get away with. The MFSBs in government don't cut any of the rest of us any slack. Why do they deserve any? Treat traitors as traitors and we will have far fewer traitors.

 

[LPMan59]

 

[cobber]

I said suggested, not the actual implementation of law. But still, that does not address my premise. If a law has been struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional, then by defalt, all those that voted in favor or enforced it, have committed treason. It has already been indicated that those convicted of Treason are deserving of death.
You agree with this?

Mayors ought to stay out of constitutional politics, as should police officers.

Amend the Constitution if you can, but don't implement laws which run contrary to the Constitution as it exists.

Death seems a bit...final. How about recall/impeachment and a lifetime ban from politics and/or lobbying?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Damnit, those people do not have the authority to create law. Will you please stop the asinine exaggerations?

So a person can only be accountable for treason if they helped create the law? That makes sense how? It's not an exaggeration, just an illustration how ridiculous your case is. You belief ultimately holds legislators guilty of treason for acting on the will of their constituents, simply because their belief runs contrary to the Constitution. Voting in favor of an unconstitutional bill is not treason. The US Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to determine what is "constitutional" or "unconstitutional." At the declaration of the USSC naming a law unconstitutional, arrest and death warrants aren't issued to those legislators that originally voted for said, struck down, "unconstitutional" law, nor should it ever be that way.

 

[Captain Bligh]

Goodness people, it is neither treason nor impeachable to propose legislation. It's United States legislative process -- the way it is supposed to work.

Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Mayors ought to stay out of constitutional politics, as should police officers.

Amend the Constitution if you can, but don't implement laws which run contrary to the Constitution as it exists.

Death seems a bit...final. How about recall/impeachment and a lifetime ban from politics and/or lobbying?

This would be fair, as I would call it more "overstepping authority," rather than outright Treason.

 

[drillsgt]

You are correct, but it looks like they are going ahead with this proposal anyway. It will be very difficult but if this does pass I'll have to look into moving to Indiana, I already work there so that does help. I can only hope that the bill will not pass and I won't have to worry about it.
Before anyone asks, yes I have been contacting my elected officials and I will continue to do so.

Why in the world would you work in IN yet continue to live in IL, usually it is the other way around? Come on over!

 

[IndyDave1776]

So a person can only be accountable for treason if they helped create the law? That makes sense how? It's not an exaggeration, just an illustration how ridiculous your case is. You belief ultimately holds legislators guilty of treason for acting on the will of their constituents, simply because their belief runs contrary to the Constitution. Voting in favor of an unconstitutional bill is not treason. The US Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to determine what is "constitutional" or "unconstitutional." At the declaration of the USSC naming a law unconstitutional, arrest and death warrants aren't issued to those legislators that originally voted for said, struck down, "unconstitutional" law, nor should it ever be that way.

They did not take oath to uphold and advance the will of their constituents Constitution be damned.

Back to the issues of aggravating and mitigating circumstances that I would expect you, of all people, to understand, so many of our laws are such that no one could make a sane argument for constitutional compliance and have been allowed largely because of one historical anomaly: Franklin Roosevelt defied the then-customary (now constitutionally mandated) two-term limit and by doing so succeeded at packing the Supreme Court with ideologues who obviously didn't care about the Constitution and brought us such great rulings as Wickard v. Filburn and set the stage for much of the destruction we have since seen. We cannot rely solely on the Supreme Court for the preservation or our rights or the republic as evidenced by the abject failure in relying on the court in this capacity.

Let me ask you a question: Do you see a problem with the way our country has operated in the last 100 years or so? If so, what do you recommend doing about it?