Court Rulings highlight Inconsistencies

[CarlS]

From the court, direct quotations from a BATFE case. Each of these is not taken out of context, as they stand equally well alone .....

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUI'"'
FEB 04, 2009 No. 08-15640
Non-Argument Calendar
D. C. Docket No. 08-00988-CV-T-26-TGW

QUOTE: Under the Administrative Procedures Act, we defer to the decision of the Bureau unless it "(l) exceeds the Bureau's statutory authority, (2) violates a constitutional right, or (3) constitutes an 'arbitrary' or 'capricious action,' or 'an abuse of discretion' or an action 'otherwise not in accordance with law.'

CARL'S COMMENT: If, as Heller affirmed, the Second Amendment does not grant but indeed recognizes a pre-existing RIGHT (something we never needed their advice on from 1776 thru what, 1934, or maybe 1968), then almost every decision by BATF denying a citizen his or her RIGHT is logically a violation of the Constitution. The current group of political appointees and the Bureau frequently cite precedent to justify their manipulation of law. I count 158 years and 192 years of precedent, respectively. But the Constitution is a "living document that must change with the times". Or so they say. Funny, I can't find that anywhere in the actual document.

QUOTE: A statute is constitutionally vague when it fails to give a "person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108,92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298-99 (1972).

CARL'S COMMENT: The "unvague" explanation is that a statute is constitutionally vague (void for vagueness), as defined here: " adj. referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by the 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment." Note the inference that the 14th Amendment does indeed apply other amendments to the states.

QUOTE: See United States v. Thomas, 567 F.2d 299, 300 (5th Cir. 1978) (applying a commonsense meaning to the word "silencer" under former section 5845 in a vagueness challenge).

CARL'S COMMENT: If commonsense meanings are important and in fact a critical standard of law, i.e., "judicialLy noticeable" in this case, then why not so when making a plain reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Using said means rather than convoluted court rulings used to "re-interpret" our constitution, find for me where the Constitution grants authority for creation and maintenance of BATF.

Just my thoughts. It was the government, after all, which taught me to be logical and to examine everything in detail.