Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Subdeacon Joe

UPDATED: AAR My Munitions For Rep. Mike Thompson's "Gun Violence" Townhall

Recommended Posts

I cribbed these from various places.  The extension of Schenck to apply to the 2nd is my own.


"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. 

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. 

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Daniel Webster


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)


“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)


If we translate Schenck to apply to the 2nd, it would read something like “The most stringent protection of the rights to keep and bear arms would not protect a man in wantonly opening fire in a public place and causing death, injury, and panic.  It does not even protect a man who brandishes a firearm in public with the intent of causing fear and panic among the people.”


Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be. (Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756)


"For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for murder, nor wine for drunkenss, nor strength for o

outrage, nor courage for foolhardiness, put lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts which have been bestowed

on them by God, and punish them accordingly. (St. John Chrysostom)

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. (Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)


Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. (Noah Webster of Pennsylvania, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787)


The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and the arbitrary powers of rulers, and will generally -- even if these are successful -- enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

STORY, CHIEF JUSTICE JOSEPH, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)


”By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

- John F. Kennedy


"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)


Scott v. Sanford decision: " It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

Share this post

Link to post

Joe I wish you all the luck in the world 

Share this post

Link to post

It wasn't really a "town hall" in the sense of discussion and debate.  It was very structured.  You got to ask ONE question. 

The audience was 99 44/100% anti-gun, as was to be expected.  What did surprise me was that the O, So Honorable Mr. Thompson (D-CA 5th) hammered on "expanded background checks."  BUT, he also let slip that it was a start.

When I got to ask my question, first off I said that I had two non-sequiturs:  I thanked him for his work during the fires we had last October.  Then, that I had noticed a lapel pin, was that his CIB, which he said it was, and again I thanked him.   Then, to my question.  I said that he was likely familiar with the Miranda decision, which in part says, "
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. and how did he square that with having to beg permission from the government to exercise a civil right?  His answer was something along the lines of "We already have that, for years we have had rules on length of shotgun barrels, overall length, etc."  

Which seemed on the surface to answer my question, but really just did an end run around it.  He also commented that Heller gives the government the "right" to restrict firearms.  I didn't get to correct him that the government may have the power to do that, but it isn't necessarily "right." 

So, it was a propaganda and community organization meeting, not an open discussion.

Share this post

Link to post

One humorous thing at the end.  After I asked my question I retired to the back of the room.  Two young Sonoma County Sheriff's Deputies were back by the door.  I asked the one closest to the door if they minded if I stood there and leaned on the door frame.  No problem.

As the o, so Honorable Mr. Thompson was blathering something about "military style weapons" I muttered "How is the AR any different than the Ruger Ranch gun?"  one of the young deputies murmured "Thank you."  They both allowed disgusted looks to come over their faces at the idiocy they were hearing.

Share this post

Link to post

OH!  I mentioned to the slightly older deputy that I wanted one of them "Ghost Guns" that Kevin de Leon talked about.  His comment?  "He's gonna be our next Senator.  God help us."

Share this post

Link to post

Joe I knew it would be an anti gun crowd because of where it was held. That whole area around the town of sonoma is so in their own world is how I will put it, that is why he chose  hannas boys center. 

There is a lot I would like to say but do not want to get permanently band  for the sass wire

Share this post

Link to post

You do know that he has 2 kids, one a cop and one a fireman

Share this post

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Shoer 27979 said:

You do know that he has 2 kids, one a cop and one a fireman



Yep.  He even brought that up.  "My son is a cop.  If I want to give him a gun, that day, we have to meet at the gun store, he gets out of his patrol car - with an AR and a shotgun on the dash - go in with is sidearm - and they do a background check on him."

No one saw the stupidity of that.

Share this post

Link to post
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.