In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
States Rights ( Sovereign Rights )
tavarish
Member Posts: 127 ✭✭
Thus far 20 states of this Union have declared their Sovereignty over the FED.Over the issue of GUN RIGHTS if you want to hear
more on this issue listen to ............ infowars.com ..........
more on this issue listen to ............ infowars.com ..........
Comments
Thus far 20 states of this Union have declared their Sovereignty over the FED.Over the issue of GUN RIGHTS if you want to hear
more on this issue listen to ............ infowars.com ..........
They are wrong. The Bill of Rights trump states rights. The problem is the feds have just plain ignored the Bill of Rights more specifically the 2nd Amendment. The Justice Dept. should be going after any state who passes laws which infringe on our RTKABA's!!!![:(!]
Brad Steele
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
* Second Amendment - Right to keep and bear arms.
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.
* Third Amendment - Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
* Fourth Amendment - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
* Fifth Amendment - due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
* Sixth Amendment - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
* Seventh Amendment - Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
* Eighth Amendment - Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
* Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
* Tenth Amendment - Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Methinks, Jim, that the states in question are asserting their sovereignty over the Federal Government's infringement of 2nd Amendment Rights. That would be more in keeping with Jones's MO, anyway.
I know that, but that is bass acwards from the way it should work!!![V]
The Tenth Amendment makes it clear the states have no right to make laws that violate the 2nd Amendment rights, thus the state laws are unconstitutional, so the Feds should intervene on OUR behalf.
The Tenth Amendment makes it clear the states have no right to make laws that violate the 2nd Amendment rights, thus the state laws are unconstitutional, so the Feds should intervene on OUR behalf.
No, it doesnt, no they arent, and the idea that the feds should "intervene on our behalf" in areas that the constitution prohibits such intervention, is the reason why we have continued to see our rights restricted by government.
By there nature, governments do not "protect" individual rights-every function of government requires rights to be taken away.
By deferring the people and individuals responsibility of protecting themselves from state infringement to the federal government, we continue to give the federal government more room to violate the constitution, and in the end take away, not protect rights.
"We dont have to worry about protecting our rights, thats the federal governments job". That is not their job, that has never been their job- their job is the exact opposite, and they are very good at it. They are so good at it, they have the vast majority of americans thanking them for their constitutional infractions,while they continue to restrict the rights of the people.
Thank You Sir, may I have another.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The Tenth Amendment makes it clear the states have no right to make laws that violate the 2nd Amendment rights, thus the state laws are unconstitutional, so the Feds should intervene on OUR behalf.
No, it doesnt, no they arent, and the idea that the feds should "intervene on our behalf" in areas that the constitution prohibits such intervention, is the reason why we have continued to see our rights restricted by government.
By there nature, governments do not "protect" individual rights-every function of government requires rights to be taken away.
By deferring the people and individuals responsibility of protecting themselves from state infringement to the federal government, we continue to give the federal government more room to violate the constitution, and in the end take away, not protect rights.
"We dont have to worry about protecting our rights, thats the federal governments job". That is not their job, that has never been their job- their job is the exact opposite, and they are very good at it. They are so good at it, they have the vast majority of americans thanking them for their constitutional infractions,while they continue to restrict the rights of the people.
Thank You Sir, may I have another.
You are wrong. I have witnessed first hand where the Fed's get directly involved in civil rights violations of individuals and in corruption investigations. This is undertaken because the people involved were complaining of their 'constitutional rights' being violated. But as I stated above this does not seem to apply to RTKABA's or those who do not have a 'minority' standing.
An example of this is what happened in the Rodney King incident.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The Tenth Amendment makes it clear the states have no right to make laws that violate the 2nd Amendment rights, thus the state laws are unconstitutional, so the Feds should intervene on OUR behalf.
No, it doesnt, no they arent, and the idea that the feds should "intervene on our behalf" in areas that the constitution prohibits such intervention, is the reason why we have continued to see our rights restricted by government.
By there nature, governments do not "protect" individual rights-every function of government requires rights to be taken away.
By deferring the people and individuals responsibility of protecting themselves from state infringement to the federal government, we continue to give the federal government more room to violate the constitution, and in the end take away, not protect rights.
"We dont have to worry about protecting our rights, thats the federal governments job". That is not their job, that has never been their job- their job is the exact opposite, and they are very good at it. They are so good at it, they have the vast majority of americans thanking them for their constitutional infractions,while they continue to restrict the rights of the people.
Thank You Sir, may I have another.
You are wrong. I have witnessed first hand where the Fed's get directly involved in civil rights violations of individuals and in corruption investigations. This is undertaken because the people involved were complaining of their 'constitutional rights' being violated. But as I stated above this does not seem to apply to RTKABA's or those who do not have a 'minority' standing.
An example of this is what happened in the Rodney King incident.
Uhhh, what does that have to do with your "opinion" that the tenth amendment makes it clear that the states have no right to make laws that violate the second amendment? Do you realize how completely wrong your "opinion" is (obviously you do not)? "States" can not make laws that violate the second amendment, because the second amendment does not apply to them. The second amendment is a prohibition placed on the federal government, and the tenth amendment sure as hell does not place in the hands of the federal government the authority to police the states when it comes to rights being violated. Maybe I am missing something.
The tenth amendment reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Where in the tenth amendment do you find this prohibition placed upon the states, when it comes to the second amendment?
Interesting, as 34 is the number required to call for a constitutional convention.
http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/