If Groups No Longer Recognize the Legitimacy of the Law...

[Suvorov]

Once we have that data, all sides can then decide on what’s next. JMO.

It’s the “what next” that has me so concerned that I’m looking for land in the Former Yugoslavia for my wife and kids to escape to in the event things go real sideways here.

Ironic eh?

[Totem Polar]

It’s the “what next” that has me so concerned that I’m looking for land in the Former Yugoslavia for my wife and kids to escape to in the event things go real sideways here.

Ironic eh?

Very.

[JodyH]

We have states passing laws that they know are in direct conflict to federal laws, such as legalizing marijuana or allowing machine guns to be built if the gun does not cross a state line. While one or both may be a good idea, our rule of law said both are covered as part of interstate commerce and can be regulated by fed.gov. So any changes or challenges should be at the federal level. Instead states are trying to do end runs around the federal laws and depending upon the law determines which side supports the end run.

90% of the federal laws should be erased from the books to be replaced (or not) by state laws.
The US should be 50 individual states loosely bound together by a small federal government that only assists in mediating disputes between states and protection from foreign actors.
What happens within a states borders should be of no concern to anyone except the citizens of that state.

[Lex Luthier]

It’s the “what next” that has me so concerned that I’m looking for land in the Former Yugoslavia for my wife and kids to escape to in the event things go real sideways here.

Ironic eh?

My Sarajevo refugee friend left Oakland CA and moved to Split with his California-born wife, for the same reason.

[dragonmouse]

I believe that if even small groups can ignore the law without penalty their example will inspire and embolden others to do the same. So the number is immaterial. What is material is that the State does nothing to enforce the laws.

And this is being done on both sides of the political spectrum. Ignoring laws because they are believed to be unconstitutional is not how the system is meant to function. We have states passing laws that they know are in direct conflict to federal laws, such as legalizing marijuana or allowing machine guns to be built if the gun does not cross a state line. While one or both may be a good idea, our rule of law said both are covered as part of interstate commerce and can be regulated by fed.gov. So any changes or challenges should be at the federal level. Instead states are trying to do end runs around the federal laws and depending upon the law determines which side supports the end run.

And here we have the crux of the problem. Our federal code runs to over 80000 pages never mind the millions of state and local laws that are considered "rule of law". The major issue here, is the idea that our rule of law is simply not being enforced as written. In the above cases there is certainly no constitutional authority for either the state or especially the feds to be involved in either one of these issues, under the bill of rights. Neither of the above listed infractions of "rule of law" is within the authority of either governmental entity. They both are however directly covered by the Bill of Rights, signed onto and ratified by both parties. The idea that a few judges can misinterpret what is plainly written in the founding documents and be accepted by society is why we are where we are.
The contradiction's between what the bor and the interstate cc are many and perverted as currently enforced and I might add not what the icc was originally designed for according to the federalist papers on both sides. Constitutional scholar is an idiot's term as there is nothing to study. It says what it says and anything beyond that creates this type of disagreement.
Using the one we are/should be most familiar with. Where is the but in the 2nd amendment. I can keep and bear arms unless some group of judges decides that full auto is something I should not have? (I really could care less about full auto by the way) Unless otherwise prohibited through my actions not intent but actions that prohibition is directly in violation of the second. No amount of the judges said so will ever change that nor will the actions of any federal or state governments Unless it is repealed as is possible under the constitution. Where exactly is the authority, federal or state to tell an individual what they may or may not put in their own body? Nope doesn't exist either. Bottom line is as a US citizen, your first duty is to follow the bor. If your actions violate that, then the reason why you did so does not matter.
In the above quote "states doing an end run" is exactly what states /the people are directed to do when the fed government oversteps its authority, and under the bor it did so in both cases according to a flawed ruling, directly violating the bor, by some judges. No reasonable person can live by the bor and believe otherwise. Yet doing so somehow equates to freedom? Someone really needs to explain that to me.
This is long and I am sorry for that but I am more sorry that reasonable folks can't understand that the judicial system is broken beyond repair because some people believe safety(security) is more important (deserved) than freedom, as well as the idea that scotus is the final answer. If you have to interpret what it says then you are wrong, period end of story. Exactly as was warned about by those folks who wrote the documents to begin with.

[farscott]

And here we have the crux of the problem. Our federal code runs to over 80000 pages never mind the millions of state and local laws that are considered "rule of law". The major issue here, is the idea that our rule of law is simply not being enforced as written. In the above cases there is certainly no constitutional authority for either the state or especially the feds to be involved in either one of these issues, under the bill of rights. Neither of the above listed infractions of "rule of law" is within the authority of either governmental entity. They both are however directly covered by the Bill of Rights, signed onto and ratified by both parties. The idea that a few judges can misinterpret what is plainly written in the founding documents and be accepted by society is why we are where we are.
The contradiction's between what the bor and the interstate cc are many and perverted as currently enforced and I might add not what the icc was originally designed for according to the federalist papers on both sides. Constitutional scholar is an idiot's term as there is nothing to study. It says what it says and anything beyond that creates this type of disagreement.
Using the one we are/should be most familiar with. Where is the but in the 2nd amendment. I can keep and bear arms unless some group of judges decides that full auto is something I should not have? (I really could care less about full auto by the way) Unless otherwise prohibited through my actions not intent but actions that prohibition is directly in violation of the second. No amount of the judges said so will ever change that nor will the actions of any federal or state governments Unless it is repealed as is possible under the constitution. Where exactly is the authority, federal or state to tell an individual what they may or may not put in their own body? Nope doesn't exist either. Bottom line is as a US citizen, your first duty is to follow the bor. If your actions violate that, then the reason why you did so does not matter.
In the above quote "states doing an end run" is exactly what states /the people are directed to do when the fed government oversteps its authority, and under the bor it did so in both cases according to a flawed ruling, directly violating the bor, by some judges. No reasonable person can live by the bor and believe otherwise. Yet doing so somehow equates to freedom? Someone really needs to explain that to me.
This is long and I am sorry for that but I am more sorry that reasonable folks can't understand that the judicial system is broken beyond repair because some people believe safety(security) is more important (deserved) than freedom, as well as the idea that scotus is the final answer. If you have to interpret what it says then you are wrong, period end of story. Exactly as was warned about by those folks who wrote the documents to begin with.

While I agree in principle, the States should sue the federal government if there is an argument for a violation. If the courts do not support the States interpretation of the law, then citizens should elect Representatives and Senators that agree to change the laws. If that still does not work, then it is time for the real reason the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. But with voter turnout less than fifty percent for even a Presidential election and the amazingly high percentage of successful Congressional incumbents winning elections, it is hard to argue the citizens agree the federal laws are wrong.

[Suvorov]

But with voter turnout less than fifty percent for even a Presidential election and the amazingly high percentage of successful Congressional incumbents winning elections, it is hard to argue the citizens agree the federal laws are wrong.

Maybe - but what I have noticed living among Liberal Kalifornians is that everyone of them thinks they are special snow flakes and that the rules are written for other people. Just recently my wife’s friends said she only follows the rules that make sense. This is similar to the attitude I see in heavily socialist countries. Everything is illegal so nobody pays attention. Most of them never get caught so they do what they want and don’t care about Federal vs State laws. Meanwhile LawfulGood assholes like me are bending over backwards to comply will BS laws that are unconstitutional and paying through my butt in taxes just so I don’t end up getting jacked by the system. Cause I ain’t got no privilege!

[Eric_L]

90% of the federal laws should be erased from the books to be replaced (or not) by state laws.
The US should be 50 individual states loosely bound together by a small federal government that only assists in mediating disputes between states and protection from foreign actors.
What happens within a states borders should be of no concern to anyone except the citizens of that state.

This. The states would have radically different flavors. You could choose what you want- and have it.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I'm a big believer in the "might makes right" aspect of governance and the rule of law, simply because that's the only reason I accept it myself. As far as I'm concerned, no governing body has any legitimate moral authority to make rules for me, and I comply out of either voluntary case-specific agreement with a particular rule, or out of fear. If I disagree with a law, the only reason I would comply with it is the belief that I am likely to be punished. If I don't think that's likely or the punishment is insufficient to compel me by force, I'll ignore the law entirely and I honestly would have a hard time grasping why anyone would do any different. If there aren't serious consequences for breaking the rules, who cares what they are?

So if the government loses the ability to engender fear in some sectors of the population, I would assume that would spread throughout the population at large, particularly if the primary use that large fractions of the general population have for it is protection. I don't walk around with a gun here because the consequences for getting caught are significant and the odds of needing a gun are tiny.

If the odds of needing one go up, or the consequences go down, why wouldn't I carry one? I don't have any interest in rules for their own sake. Does anyone other than Karens (or their aging mothers who I call Evelyns)?

[Baldanders]

...and the sovereignty of the nation...can they be defeated via the courts and the rule of law, or does their (violent) resistance have to be met by greater force than they bring to bear?

Where is the tipping point?

Please discuss...

The tipping point was when polls showed citizens had lost faith in the federal government being able to do anything besides maintain a national military. (Sometime after 9/11?)

We stopped believing it was possible, then we elected politicians who made sure it wouldn't work, on both the right and left.

All the counter-insurgency tactics in the world won't stop that tide.

I have no solutions beyond the first step of realizing that we, the people, are responsible for this mess, and no heros are coming to save us.

I'm going to recommend, yet again, the site that has been talking about the failure of our republic for over a decade.

https://fabiusmaximus.com/

Larry changed many of my views over a long period of time. I am to his left, much like I am to PF in general, but I agree with his core mission.

If his pro-gun control stuff freaks you out, I can tell you his views have "evolved" quite a bit recently, judging by some personal correspondence with him.

No easy answers, just a lot of hard work ahead.

But fuck despair.