"Gun reporting laws don't infringe on Constitution," Wilmington Department of Police Capt. Nancy S. Dietz assures us as her contribution to DelawareOnline's Constitution Day observance.
She tells us of the graduation ceremony for department recruits, "with the official recitation of the oath of office, which requires each new officer to swear to enforce all state and local laws and support the Constitution of the United States of America."
And then she tips her hand:
Clearly, the principles enshrined in the Constitution have evolved, and the courts have provided changing interpretations of the law as society faces new challenges.
Ah, I see. A career "Only One" bureaucrat is using sleight of mind to stump for more "gun control"--and relying on those she addresses to not see through her artifice and know any better.
Here's where she's leading us:
Despite opinions to the contrary, our Constitution is a living document that was intended to safeguard our rights. It embodies freedom, equality, justice, security and protection of our nation's core values. Enacting state gun laws that are reasonable and helpful to law enforcement will not diminish the principles of the Second Amendment and the obligations inferred by the Constitution and its founders.
The only thing contrary to her assertion are "opinions"? Capt. Nancy Dietz (along with Al Gore) said it, I believe it, that settles it?
Does she mean "inferred by" or "implied by"? If the former, she is claiming to know the minds of the Founders, and implies she is speaking for them.
And the...uh...infringements she's proposing don't diminish "shall not be infringed"? Could such an obvious contradiction really be proffered as the truth--at least honestly?
Just what this lady took an oath to is a mystery to me. It seems it can change based on the interpretation du jour. You know, "War is peace" and all that...
If we're to believe her, it means we're to believe what was clearly understood yesterday, by serious visionaries who left a record of their intent, means something different today--at least to those who allow themselves to be manipulated because the only records they're interested in all have a backbeat.
The "principles enshrined in the Constitution" have not changed, but how convenient, albeit logically absurd, to enshrine the subjective and malleable. Examples Capt. Dietz has given in terms of slavery and women's rights have been addressed via an amendment process that requires no contemporary reinterpretation. As for legislating away unalienable rights, no one can do that, at least with any moral or legal authority as envisioned by the Founders.
That's what they meant by "unalienable."
That activist judges and ambitious politicians have been allowed to get away with subversion to advance their own ends is undeniable. Which is why it's past time for a critical mass of We the People to wake the hell up, put a stop to it, and return to the "enshrined principles".
That's the beachhead we need to secure if we are ever to go on and make deeper inroads toward freedom.
Today is Constitution Day. Read it. And read this (paying special attention to the "Preamble"). Then don't "infer," understand.
That the "Authorized Journalist" government lapdogs at DelawareOnline would present this as an example to "honor Constitution Day" is all too unsurprising, but nonetheless obscene. Because relying on the self-serving Capt. Dietz's of the world to parse and define what your rights are is nothing less than allowing yourself to be carted down the road to the police state.
Do you really believe that's what the Founders intended to "enshrine"?
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends? And get more commentary on the gun rights stories of the day at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
No, we should not believe them because they are nothing more than self-serving LIARS.
OK - So - our masters can interpret the law of the land for the hoi polloi, Does that mean that they can also arbitrarily, at a whim, change the plain meanings of statutes and regulations?
If no laws mean what they say, we are living in a country where law enforcers can interpret anything one does as "breaking" the law.
I'm sure there's a name for that. What do you call someone who believes that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't mean what the written word means, yet takes an oath to uphold the words as written?
It's likely that these same folks believe that Oath Keepers are extremists. Perhaps it is "extreme" to actually believe in and abide by the written word.
If all laws are merely "living documents" imagine trying to play a game of basketball where the rules are open to interpretation by the officials. I guess that's where we stand.
I will suggest that evolving interpretations of the law and the dismantling of unailinable rights to be two entirely different things.
Amazing that none of anti-RKBA folks can correctly "interpret" what the founders meant when there are many papers/books/etc with their writing such gems as:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
James Monroe
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government."
Alexander Hamilton
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams
"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for
the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
James Madison
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson
"I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power."
Thomas Paine
"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
George Mason
Something I have never understood. Most of the cops on the street are all for citizen gun ownership. What happens to their brains as they climb the ranks? Do they have a epiphany?
And where does this "living, breathing" Constitution come from? I've read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. They seem pretty straight forward to me. But then I'm not a "only one".
This is Robert- The Constitution was not meant to be "revised" through numerous courts as suggested by this self serving politician. It was supposed to be the rudder that brought us back on course each time we sailed off off course due to "new" court interpretations of various unconstitutional laws. It is supposed to be the one document that never changes it's meaning and that everything else should conform to the meanings in it as defined by the founding fathers and not the current idiots sitting on a court bench pretending they are the smartest in the land.
Revised, no but amended, yes! and it has been amended 27 times since 1789. But ten of those amendments were the Bill of Rights, passed in one chunk, and therefore maybe that revises our count to 17 times. Therefore, some people believe that the process is too hard and they seek to make end runs around it. Those are the "living document" folks who would in essence make the document itself irrelevant, preferring to go by what they wish it said, or how the courts have interpreted it.
Great article, David.
The Judiciary and the civil servants of law enforcement have no authority to interpret anything.
The constitution specifically states that the judiciary must interpret all laws to be in compliance with the restrictions placed on them by the constitution. It really is that simple.
The civil servants overstepping their legal boundaries are not only violating the trust placed in them by the citizens they swore to serve and protect they also violate the oath they swore before God.. maybe these miscreant elitists should find other employment in the private sector where they can fully exercise their over developed egos.
Yank lll
If possession is 9/10's of the law, then what LEO or a bureaucrat or a Politician claims to be Constitutional, must be.
The equation is skewed. When Government is wrong, the Citizen faces fines, loss of property, often prison, and the resulting poverty, broken family, and the stain that comes with being a victim of Lawfare.
But when LEO, bureaucrats or Politicians are wrong, they face, at most, an administrative slap on the wrist. They have no skin in the game. They risk lives of others, and nothing of themselves.
Nothing will change until Patriots, supported by Citizens, gear up and raze the system to the ground. Make every Soul who would be a Master go away. Buh Bye. Forevah to be silent and restricted from the controls of society.
An aside: The Broward County School Board who has suspended that boy for 2 YEARS because he had a TOY gun in his school backpack...are the greatest example of the day as to why certain human beings should be encouraged to engage in retroactive self-abortion.
The republic can not long continue as it is...Nature will not abide it...
These people give lip service to the Constitution and Bill of Rights when necessary. They really don't mean they support it or even understand it. Unfortunately, some of them do understand it and don't agree at all with citizens having that much freedom, the same amount that our founders thought essential to every citizen.
They really feel better and more qualified that those who made freedom and liberties individual to the citizen and they really do want to tell everyine what to do and when and require of them reasons for their decisions and permissions to proceed with any action.
They are the enemy of your freedom and personal safety. They are the enemies of your country because they increase your vulnerabilities to all manner of attack and believe that you shouldn't have what was your birthright. They intend to take it ALL away from you and your children because they are better than you, or your children. You're just to stupid to appreciate them but they're gonna fix that little problem!
When you think about it, it's kind of ironic that people who are, in fact, enemies of the Second Amendment, regardless of their professed belief in and support of, and oaths to uphold it, frequently give us examples of why the Founders insisted on having it. The more they try to wiggle past that brick wall of "shall not be infringed" the more they prove the need for it and proof that, contrary to their wishes, it is not "obsolete".
DDS -- NRA Life Member
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Should we believe that the train we're forced to board is taking us to a "re-education camp?" Should we believe the bar we're handed on entering the "shower" is actually soap? Eloi will believe whatever they're told.
David this may be your best articles this year.
It’s amazing how tyranny can change history to fit its own agenda.
We now learn the constitution evolves thanks to police Capt. Nancy Dingbat.
Further more we find the constitution is a living breathing document that can be changed as often as Owl Gore chases women around a hotel room.
To answer the question should we believe police that tell us gun laws don’t infringe on the constitution?
Well we certainly shouldn’t believe this women.
I remember the first time I heard that phrase "Living Document"... used by George Bush, right as he was pushing The Patriot Act down our throats!!
I haven't given Bush or any other Republicans a pass and have never advocated for any of the civil liberty violations from the Patriot Act and all its spin-offs--quite the opposite, in fact. Suggest you check out my War On Guns blog and search for 'vote freedom first president' or McCain or Romney or...
Still, with his many faults I have found Bush said just the opposite of what you're claiming, and promised he would only nominate strict constructionists--not that I believed him, but I would ask you to give a link to a credible source that he publicly advocated the Constitution was a living document. You made a claim here and I will not suppress it if you can educate us and show us where and when he said it. Will you?
Excellent work as always Mr. David Codrea
Congratulations of the highest order for this particular work, having established yourself as one among the rarest of those writing about the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in making a point to direct the reader to pay special attention to the PREAMBLE to The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791. ( commonly referred to as The ‘Bill of Rights’ )
Pertinent excerpt as follows:
“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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Amendment II "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Personally I’m sick of gun control and all of this living document nonsense.
David, I recently had the chance to watch the JPFO film “NO GUNS FOR JEWS” and it as drawn a line in the sand for me.
I have always believed my 2A right was from God and was part of my faith and that I didn’t need a permission slip from government to exercise the right.
The Rabbi in the JPFO film defines our right as not only a right but an Obligation.
So when this police woman says gun control laws do not infringe the constitution, not only do they infringe the constitution they violate Gods law as well.
Police Capt. Nancy Dietz is against Gods law
Someone needs to send Nancy a copy of the new JPFO film “No guns for Jews”
Great article, David Codrea. Re your question, about believing cops, my answer is:
HECK NO!
It may say on the side of a police car, "To serve and protect", but we really know who they serve and protect, don't we?
The State
Police salaries are paid for by the taxpayer. But, police report to their political masters. These same political masters authorize how many of the police are to be deployed, where they are to be deployed and how they are to be deployed. Most of the time, the average citizen has no input on matters of policing.
SCOTUS has ruled that the police are under no obligation to provide protection to individuals. I doubt that 5 % of LEO in this country have ever read the U.S. Constitution, or even their state constitutions. Yet, we are to BELIEVE THEM when they say gun laws don't infringe on the U.S. Constitution? No way, Jose.
To further comment on what's been said already in the article and comments:
The "living document" line is hand-waving to disguise an illegal process: attempting to change the Constitution without following the already defined process for change via amendments.
The Declaration of Independence describes the heirarchy of legal power and authority which applies in the USA as such: The Creator gave untranferrable rights to each individual human; humans created government to protect those rights; government derives its powers SOLELY from the consent of the governed and has absolutely no legal power without that which was delegated to it via the US Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain language (compare with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers for contrast) and needs no interpretation; interpretation is for laws Congress passes, all which must have a directly-related delgated power from the Constitution in order to be recognized as "legal".
Existing US case law still recognizes that any government action outside of the legal framework and delegated powers provided to it by the Constitution is ILLEGAL and VOID - without any official say-so or further court decision. See commentary on Marbury vs Madison as well as the Norton vs Shelby County case.
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Furthermore, it is recognized by US case law that resisting an illegal government act, even if deadly force is successfully used, is both legal and proper. See John Bad Elk vs United States for the case of one person who resisted an illegal arrest which resulted in the attacker (the arresting cop) dying of his wounds suffered while acting in a criminal, yet "official", manner.
Thus, an answer to the question posed by the article, explained with reason and historical precident, to include legal recognition of it all, would be a resounding NO!
"No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." - Lily Tomlin
NO, we can't believe the Police about anything!
"There is absolutely no purpose either for recreation or otherwise for any person to own a dangerous assault weapon anywhere, especially in the City of Hoboken," Police Chief Anthony Falco said in a statement. "I am just elated that this weapon was confiscated and (that) most definitely makes the city a safer place."
Pretty cool, huh? The Hoboken police chief just reversed McDonald v Chicago all by himself! So.... How far should we trust this cop?
Furthermore, what the heck is wrong with the people of New Jersey in general and Hoboken in particular that they live happily with the boots of these thugs on their necks? Can the entire state be populated with Eloi?
I used to come all the time to this page & others on Examiner...but after their "update" Examiner sucks bigtime...it takes forever to load & then you have to click so many buttons to find anything it is not worth my time & effort...it is WAY more time consuming & you get less information...so until they unupdate i will not be on Examiner ....it grieves me cause i really enjoyed it before they made it "new & improved" ,,,
Until this country's filthy maggot pigs rot in hell where they belong, expect this to continue unabated. Damn them for lying in their oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..." They are nothing more than Thugs with Guns. May they rot in hell for what they've done to this country.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!