Congressman who vote legislation that violates our constitution-legal opinion

[jcn59]

I asked the NRA why we couldn't incarcerate politicians who violate our constitutional rights.  This is the response.  I've asked a similar question several times on this site but none of OUR legal eagles came forth with a response.  Ever.   So please read, but if you are a lawyer, you already missed your chance to comment.

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA.  Legal action cannot be brought against members of Congress who may, in your view, be in violation of their oaths of office or the Constitution by failure to uphold the Second Amendment.  Members of Congress are specifically protected by Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution that clearly states "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."  The Supreme Court has held that this clause protects "Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process."  I hope this answers your question.  We appreciate your support.

Sincerely,

Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA

[BBF]

I wonder if this mantle of protection exists once they have been kicked to the curb.

[jcn59]

BBF, your avatar suggests you might be Canadian.  How did "kicking them to the curb" work when your anti gun laws were passed?

[BBF]

I'm not sure what my post and you question have in common so I'll do my best to reply:
 Yes, I am a Canadian+
Canada never had a 2nd Ad. so there are no Constitutional issues.
Canada doesn't have a Constitution as the US has.
Canadians own and possess firearms at the whim and pleasure of their Govt.

The additional/ latest large firearm regulations were brought in because we had a majority Liberal( read Democrats) Govt.
A Prime Minister in Canada has a lot more executive power then a US president although your present one is doing a good job of grabbing more then he should.

 We had a nutcase Frenchmen in Quebec become unglued and opened up with a large capacity semi auto banger and killed 13 female students which caused a very strong support from the general public to pass those present restrictions and no or very little opposition in Parliament.

 The firearms I can have legally fulfill my needs  and personally I don't need to have a handgun hanging on my belt to feel secure or free* .


* Only after you are dead you are truly free IMO

[gypsyman]

Question for you BBF. The case your refering to, is that the one were the shooter opened up in a nurse's dorm, and killed all those women, because he couldn't get a date with one?? Because if it is, it's also where your govt. got a few womens groups together, and looked over all those evil, dirty,nasty guns, you know, the ones that look bad!! Ar-15's,Uzi's, the ones with the black menacing stock, and possibly the flash suppressor on the end of the barrel. And then decided that they were the one's that needed to be banned. Are you forgetting one thing here. The shooter used a stock mini-14, and the women said, OH, that gun doesn't look so bad. That should be OK. So they left that off the list. The actual gun the shooter used, that's ok. Sounds to me like some of you canuckleheads need to get together and do something with your govt. They've had their heads up their arse alot longer than our's has. But, I guess as long you guys have Canadian Club,Molson's, and hockey, your happy.  gypsyman

[dukkillr]

I asked the NRA why we couldn't incarcerate politicians who violate our constitutional rights.  This is the response.  I've asked a similar question several times on this site but none of OUR legal eagles came forth with a response.  Ever.   So please read, but if you are a lawyer, you already missed your chance to comment.

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA.  Legal action cannot be brought against members of Congress who may, in your view, be in violation of their oaths of office or the Constitution by failure to uphold the Second Amendment.  Members of Congress are specifically protected by Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution that clearly states "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."  The Supreme Court has held that this clause protects "Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process."  I hope this answers your question.  We appreciate your support.

Sincerely,

Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA

I'm glad they took the time explain the answer to you.  I assume this is more politically driven than an actual attempt to protect constitutional rights? 

[jcn59]

I especially like your first reply here, BBF.  We in the USA need to let our so-called democratic government officials know that they answer to us, and if need be, we will "kick them to the gutter" just like we did to the last governing entity that forgot who was really in charge.

I would add, that for you, it's a good thing you DON'T need a handgun hanging on your belt to feel free, because Canadians don't even have a choice, and that's a darn shame.  Here in the USA, a handgun hanging on our belt  is one of many things that symbolizes our freedom.  We're still as adamant about our freedoms now as the last time a government tried to disarm us a couple centuries back.

Sincerely though, I appreciate the thought and content from all the people who have responded to my post.

[jimster]

I wear a handgun and have them with me because I can.  I am already free.  The 2nd Amendemt does not give the the right to do this.  It only tells me I already had that right as a free man.  It's not just the second Amendement either...the whole thing is based on your God given rights....not government given rights.  The Founding fathers were very clear in their writings on all this. 

I think it's odd that a group of people or person could decide who gets to defend their life, and who doesn't.  And who are the "good guys" that get guns...(government officials only?)

If anyone gets to have a gun in their pants when they go to town...it should be me.  I also am responsible for all my actions no matter what, and will pay the price of anything that happens because of me or my actions.  That's part of being free too.   


 

[1marty]

 8 more years of Obama there will be no more Constitution so why discuss it?

[jcn59]

The "buck" stops with myself and my neighbors across this land, not the constitution or our wayward congress.  We can prevail if we chose to. Like the last time.

I can see it now.  It will be me and a dozen or so other old folks getting squashed by USA tanks with a couple billion US citizens watching......doing nothing.   It'll look like the T. Square episode.

[BBF]

There is one post I can't reply to in lenght due to Site Rules!! The shooting I was refering to was a Womens College and yes, the firarm was a Ruger Mini .223
 That shooting brought in the restriction for rifle centerfire semi's not to have more then a 4 round capacity in the clip or mag.
As far as Canadians citizen wanting to have similar choices in regards to carrying handguns etc. There just isn't near enough public support for that. The sense I get is that the majority of Canadaians feel that there is too much Rambo and Wild West attitudes in the US. This by the way is NOT my opinion. However I'm not a "Nuke 'em 'til they glow" fan either.

[jimster]

I can understand the media and lots of people having the wild west and rambo attitude scare, it's happened here over the years many times and is just one of those things. Still hear it.  Only way you could fight it is with facts.  2.5 million people defend themselves each year against criminals.  3600 house fires a year.
If you think you need a fire extinguisher in the house, make sure it's loaded.  Nothing wrong with a firearms either considering how many people use them against criminals.  Numbers tell the tale.  Emotions are not a good way to consider laws, but many laws are passed on emotion alone with no facts.
Could be an argument made that crime in many places did NOT drop because more of us carry now...but no argument could be made it went up because more of us carry...because it didn't.  It went down.  How many people who have CCW's are in the news for being in trouble...zero it seems.  Of course there is always the argument that if cops needs them...we all do...doesn't make sense for them to be the only ones who could protect themselves.  The courts here already ruled that an LEO is not responsible for your  personel protection...which pretty much sums it all up.  It's up to each person to protect themselves, all you got is yourself sometimes.   

You can change 4 rd mags fast too, and since nobody is allowed to have a handgun or any weapon in public...I would imagine someone could take their sweet time changing mags too.  Plenty of time with everyone being disarmed.  Heck you could use a single shot and pick off a bunch of unarmed people. So I would imagine the next time there was a shooting by someone with 10 four round mags...they would make another law...and then another..and then another.  Funny part is, it was already against the law to kill someone in the first place no matter what you used.  At what point do the people who write the laws stop?  Even the people writing the laws have guns, or hire guns to protect them.  Government guns.  Go figure.