Recently I've been reading about and trying to research "Unconstitutional Official Acts".  Is anyone here familiar with this? Is there an official document or citation where this is from?

Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.



I've also seen as:

Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am.Jur.2d § 256.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.


Anyway.. just thought I'd share and ask if anyone's familiar with this and if it could be used in court.  Seems beautifully written and on point.

The SCOTUS determines laws to be unconstitutional all the time. They can also determine a statute to be partially unconstitutional such as the Heller Decision.

I have often wondered if we could file a lawsuit against Hawaii representatives (state house and senate) for violating the state constitution, they constantly seem to be voting against tesstimonies and as such are not representing the people who elected them.

This should be a federal law (i wish). Any lawmaker who votes for and a unconstitutional law passes shall be held liable and jailed/fined. Unless said law is voided within 30 days of ruling.  That way "emotions" are left out of law making.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

This should be a federal law (i wish). Any lawmaker who votes for and a unconstitutional law passes shall be held liable and jailed/fined. Unless said law is voided within 30 days of ruling.  That way "emotions" are left out of law making.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I was having this same discussion last week.

The end result is, while we as a general populace may think and agree that certain laws are unconstitutional, it only matters what the Supreme Court says. So while (using the firearms line) we think, obtaining permission from the government to purchase a firearm and exercise that right (US Con. 2nd Am., Hi Con Art 1, Sec 17) is unconstitutional, it only matters what the courts say.

So who wants to go first? The FFL for selling a firearm to an individual prior to obtaining a permit? Any individual up to open carry in town? While I definitely agree we should be (and Constitutionally are) able to do both, will the HRA and NRA pay our legal and other fees WHEN we get arrested? The cost will be more than just legal fees too. It will more than likely be your job, your property, bills, marriage, family, lots of jail time, and maybe permanent loss of your right to own a firearm.

In order to make this work, it will take every firearm owner in the state to join in. It will take every owner of a handgun to apply for a CCW permit. We need hundreds if not thousands of denials to make a case. 14 applications and 14 denials (2017 #'s) mean nothing to the courts when there are tens of thousands of handguns in the state. All the counties have to say is, "nobody applies, it's less than a tenth of a percent. So we're not discriminating". The state will win every time unless people who care about the constitution and their rights try to exercise them and are denied and disenfranchised.

So will we have an all out CCW drive for 2019? Are the HRA and NRA going to step up for Hawaii firearm owner rights?

The choice to have our rights IS ours.

OK... soapbox put away

There was a drive a few years ago and only 44 applied out of thousands of handgun owners.  I applied 2 weeks ago.

There was a drive a few years ago and only 44 applied out of thousands of handgun owners.  I applied 2 weeks ago.

Let us know when your denial arrives. And what the reasoning is. Other than "no imminent tangible threat to life or property...."

I have often wondered if we could file a lawsuit against Hawaii representatives (state house and senate) for violating the state constitution, they constantly seem to be voting against tesstimonies and as such are not representing the people who elected them.

As you know, there's a reason why the HPD is afraid to take away your guns.

Check out SB1911 sitting on Ige's desk waiting for a signature right now.

It grants DOH inspectors unrestricted access to anyone's property without a warrant. Unless it's vetoed they will be able to raid your house based solely on an anonymous complaint that you are running an unlicensed care home.

 

Check out SB1911 sitting on Ige's desk waiting for a signature right now.

It grants DOH inspectors unrestricted access to anyone's property without a warrant. Unless it's vetoed they will be able to raid your house based solely on an anonymous complaint that you are running an unlicensed care home.

I've had "medicare" reps call my in-laws who live with us make demands to come visit us for "welfare checks" of them, make sure there are no bad things happening, are there firearms in the house?... It's just more backdoor control.

Go pound sand. Our beaches have lots