ACTION

One Question

      I have a question. One to which I would really appreciate an intelligent answer. Not, I repeat NOT a rant.
The question is how does passing a new law prevent a criminal from breaking the law? Yes, it is a serious question. Just to give a few examples, there are, according to one report, twenty seven federal laws and tens of thousands of state and local laws against prostitution. In Nevada prostitution is legal in much of the state except in Clark County, the home of Las Vegas. Where are the most prostitutes per capita? Right! Clark County. Yep, I lived there for almost twenty years and can attest to that one. There are so many examples of laws that don’t stop anyone except the good citizen from doing anything that a litany of them here would be superfluous.
       So here comes the people that want to abuse the second amendment and take guns from the good people claiming that it will save lives and prevent gun violence. Where are the most gun violent crimes committed? In places like Chicago, New York and Washington D.C. where there are strict gun laws. Sure. A criminal intent on murder is going to tremble at the thought of breaking the no gun law. Just like the Sandy Hook shooter did when he saw the “Gun Free Zone” sign at the school. I’m sure he thought twice about shooting people when he saw that sign. More likely he felt more like he could achieve his goals because there were not going to be anyone but him with a gun.
       One of the sponsors of the limited magazine law said in public (I paraphrase but this is the essence of it) … once those are shot they can’t use them any more …! She actually thinks a magazine is BULLETS! I suppose we have to allow for ignorance in people who have to make a living as public officials.
I had a friend in Las Vegas, a good guy who made a mistake in his younger years and learned his lesson, that wanted to have a hunting rifle, but the law said he couldn’t. He was and is a convicted felon. Never mind that he had been a good citizen for over twenty years since then. He couldn’t go into a store and buy one so he bought one on the street. A really nice semi-automatic hunting rifle. His had an extended clip. If memory serves it held twenty rounds, but that might be wrong. He actually paid less than he would have at Wall Mart for the same rifle. He ended up buying two .357 Colts for him and his wife. The three of us spent many a pleasant afternoon plinking away at rocks and trash thrown away by those law abiding citizens that littered the desert with their trash for us to use as targets.
       So now many in Congress want to abrogate our second amendment rights and pass gun “control” laws. My question stands. The question is how does passing a new law prevent a criminal from breaking the law?
I will be happy to read and respond to any intelligent comments.

The short answer to the question in the title of this missive is yes. Let us look at how I arrived at this.
     We start with a quote from the Federalist Papers specifically No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
     Further in the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
     Far from undermining the rule of law, the local police and county officials taking these stands are actually supporting constitutional law and fulfilling their oaths to defend the founding document.
     Want more corroboration? OK. Back we go to the Federalist Papers. Remember the Federalist papers were written by the people who drafted the Constitution and were published to aid in letting the people know what that Constitution would mean to them. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers (#78): There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.”
     If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.(The emphasis is mine) (end of quote)
     Even if the Constitution of the United States is ignored by our legislators, these sheriffs have the constitutional and oath driven obligations to take a stand and follow the Constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court. If it is an unconstitutional law, it has no affect on the citizenry and should not be enforced; not by local sheriffs or police – not by the FBI nor the NSA. It certainly should not be adhered to by any citizen.