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.
Options
stupid question
Henry0Reilly
Member Posts: 10,878 ✭✭✭
Let's just suppose that the state of Michigan passed a law which said that all daily publications produced in that State must be printed on a particular grade of newsprint. Nobody was allowed to print such a publication on anything else, no bond paper, no paper of other colors, only the specified paper.
Assume that the MI Supreme Court upheld this law and it went to US Supreme Court. It would be struck down based on the First Amendment, freedom of the press and free speech which states "Congress shall make no law....." Well if the First Amendment keeps States from abridging the freedom of the press why the heck doesn't the Second keep states from making gun laws?
The obvious answer is, it should, but I still had to ask the question.
Assume that the MI Supreme Court upheld this law and it went to US Supreme Court. It would be struck down based on the First Amendment, freedom of the press and free speech which states "Congress shall make no law....." Well if the First Amendment keeps States from abridging the freedom of the press why the heck doesn't the Second keep states from making gun laws?
The obvious answer is, it should, but I still had to ask the question.
I used to recruit for the NRA until they sold us down the river (again!) in Heller v. DC. See my auctions (if any) under username henryreilly
Comments
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.
not any particular law, just laws in general...in other words has there ever been an attemt to say that the states cant make gun laws?
Henry,
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.
Do you not agree with the example? Any state or local government that suppresses free speech can be ordered by Federal Court to cease and desist under the authority of the First Amendment. That's why our local courthouse had to remove the 10 commandments from county property - it violated some moron atheist's "right" to separation of church and state under the 1st.
Dan - I don't know but there's a current case against the city of Washington DC making gun laws.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Henry,
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.
Do you not agree with the example? Any state or local government that suppresses free speech can be ordered by Federal Court to cease and desist under the authority of the First Amendment.
The feds are doin it, BUT NOT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. In reality they are doing it in spite of, or in defiance of the first amendment.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Henry,
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.
Do you not agree with the example? Any state or local government that suppresses free speech can be ordered by Federal Court to cease and desist under the authority of the First Amendment. That's why our local courthouse had to remove the 10 commandments from county property - it violated some moron atheist's "right" to separation of church and state under the 1st.
Dan - I don't know but there's a current case against the city of Washington DC making gun laws.
I belive in State's rights. That means to me, that if the state constitution gives no protection of a right (like your example) then it is up to the state citizens to decide. You don't like your state laws, then move to one you like.
I will say this, our bill of rights should also be FIRMLY a part of our state constitution.
The US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, a state that decides to make a law that is in contradiction of a stated law, the state law is negated.
This is true-but nothing in the constitution prohibits the states from prohibiting certain types of newsprint, display the ten commandments, or regulate firearm ownership.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
The US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, a state that decides to make a law that is in contradiction of a stated law, the state law is negated.
This is true-but nothing in the constitution prohibits the states from prohibiting certain types of newsprint, display the ten commandments, or regulate firearm ownership.
That actually is covered in the 14th Amendment, isn't it???
But seriously, the only way to get these types of laws repealed is for people in massive numbers to disregard them, and then be equipped to kill anyone who decides to kill them first, since we already know that they would rather see us dead than in jail.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
The US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, a state that decides to make a law that is in contradiction of a stated law, the state law is negated.
This is true-but nothing in the constitution prohibits the states from prohibiting certain types of newsprint, display the ten commandments, or regulate firearm ownership.
That actually is covered in the 14th Amendment, isn't it???
No, it isnt. The 14th amendment does not state that the bill of rights is binding on the states, and that the citizens of the states enjoy the rights specified in the bill of rights. The 14th amendment simply places in the hands of the federal government, the power and authority to decide what rights can and CAN NOT be enjoyed by the people of the states. The 14th amendment essentially destroys the bill of rights. Since its passage, courts have regularly decided what rights are protected, and what isnt, notwithstanding the bill of rights. The 14th amendment has evolved since its inception-some rights protected, then other rights protected, than specific amendments are binding against the states, yet others arent. Then selectively incorporating specific clauses in specific amendments, and negating specific clasues in specific amendments. Then changing their minds, the courts will decide that rights that once were protected, are no longer protected, and vice versa.
The 14th amendment DOES NOT protect the rights contained in the bill of rights. It merely allows the federal government to decide how to deal with rights (including those not specified, ie abortion). The 14th amendment gives the federal government the powers that the constitution strictly forbids it from having-it killed the founders constitution.
I totally agree with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Prior to that amendment, the only intention of the Constitution was to tell the FEDERAL government what it could do, everything else was to be left to the states, even if it violated the Bill of Rights.
After the Civil War, the Northern politicians wanted to insure that things didn't get out of hand again, especially since Lincoln had made it clear that the Union was a BINDING agreement. The 14th Amendment was passed as a feel good amendment to insure that blacks would never be excluded from voting or participating in government.
INSTEAD the courts interpreted that amendment to mean that ALL laws, whether federal, state, or local, were now under the interpretation of the Federal Courts to meet "Constitutional" standards. This was the birth of "legislating from the bench".
As you have correctly pointed out, the courts over the past 140 years have been very selective as to what laws they choose to place under the "Constitutional" test. Certain types of laws are vehemently prosecuted, while others (especially gun laws) are almost completely ignored.
In our current government, the JUDICIAL branch is the most powerful wing of government, which is contrary to the intention of our Founding Fathers.
To quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist #78:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This state is ruled by anti-gun Democrats that would like nothing better than to see every law-abiding citizen killed by the criminals they empower daily.
The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). There is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar the regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Whatever rights that may be protected under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say they are not unlimited, much less absolute. In this, we should be wary of what we wish, for we may get much more than we would want. For those that want their rights protected under the Second Amendment, they may soon find that they are only the more "well-regulated."
Yet another that does not understand the constitution.
The only thing you said right was the second amendment doesn't gaurentee the RTKABA. God did that, the 2nd only bars congress from passing any laws in regaurds to the RTKABA.
The Constitution does not provide for any God-given rights. Your rights to have a gun are provided by law, and not the Second Amendment. God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world, one need have recourse to the law.
Ah I see, so in other words, God's laws and His word are only good in heaven, and we mortals should ignore it until we arrive at heaven?
You also don't understand the bible.
It is funny how the 'net attracts fools and the truely ignorant.
If you knew half as much about history as you *think* you do, you would know that the founders of this country saw our BOR's as GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, and merely were seeking to LIMIT CONGRESS from abridging those RIGHTS.
You are going to have a REAL HARD time, finding someone to take your view of things, in this forum.
The framers of the Constitution did not did not perceive our rights as God-given. The Constitution is based upon secular principles and not religious precepts.
And AGAIN I will tell you, you are wrong. Go back and study history. I don't really know where you get your mis-information, but you need to look at better sources of history.
but the supreme court has agreed to hear arguments in the case of the distric of columbia vs Heller, for the right to own a weapon in the distric which is now banned.
From the Signature section:
"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America...."
In the fact that it is calling it, the year of our Lord -- "our" being the collective pronoun which implies that it is the Lord, for all who signed it.
Being religious men, the "intent" debate - is - has been - and always will be, debated.
Letters, speeches, actions, etc. following the singing of the Constitution by these men, are available. Many times, reference was made to support their belief in -- religion.
Jefferson, while President of the United States, placed the Bible and the Isaac Watt's hymnal into the public school system as required reading.
"Intent" when writing the Constitution -- debatable.
Specifically written INTO the Constitution -- nope.
But then lawyers will try to twist any word or statement, to fit their agenda.
What is the meaning of -- "is"
Where does it say in the Constitution that you have any "God-given" rights? Historically, if there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of our Constitution it is that our government is not based on religion.
...and...
"The framers of the Constitution did not did not perceive our rights as God-given. The Constitution is based upon secular principles and not religious precepts."
It is important that one put the founding documents into the proper context. To understand the Constitution and how it was formed, one has to view its counterpart, the Declaration of Independence.
It is critical to understand that the 'Natural Law Theory" grounds both the Declaration and the Constitution. The Natural Law is explicit in the Declaration of Independence and to the principals of the US Constitution.
One must first look at the Declaration of Independence and the clear fact that the God-given rights specifically referenced in it are clearly and unarguably established under the Theory/Principal of Natural Law.
The Declaration's language refers to God-given rights specifically. It claims that a God-given right is a separate and equal being and that these God-given rights exist apart from political power. It is clear in the founding documents that God grants "certain unalienable rights" and that government is merely supposed to secure those rights.
It is clear and accepted that the Declaration of Independence contains the philosophical foundations of the Constitution.
As stated by Judge Andrew Napalitano in his excellent book "The Constitution in Exile", "In other words, an understanding of Natural Law, its conferral of rights upon men and women, and the relationship between those rights and the role of government is fundamental to understand and interpret the Constitution properly."
So, long story short and put into context, it is clear that the Constitution is grounded in the belief of "God-given" and "unalienable" rights.
1. The Anno Domini ("In the year of the Lord") was the method of dating formal documents adopted following the conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. It appears in the subscription and not the body of the Constitution, and it signifies nothing but the date.
2. The Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson's ideas about rights expressed therein were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the sovereign power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.
3. There is no "Natural Law." All rights are the creation of law. As Bentham put it: "[N]atural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,- nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
That is not correct.
1. The Anno Domini ("In the year of the Lord") was the method of dating formal documents adopted following the conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. It appears in the subscription and not the body of the Constitution, and it signifies nothing but the date.
2. The Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson's ideas about rights expressed therein were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the sovereign power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.
3. There is no "Natural Law." All rights are the creation of law. As Bentham put it: "[N]atural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,- nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
Wrong.
I don't know about you, but I have the RTKBA, the right to defend myself, the right to earn and to provide for myself and/or my family, the right to freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to do many things.....AND....it didn't require a government to pass laws to provide these and many, many other of my "Natural Rights"...they are mine already, God-given if you will.[;)]
Plain enough for you ?
We only represent 3 % of the population. Should be a cake-walk for you and the Beast.
Ever read the simple words....
" 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"...?
See ..the difference between us commoners, and people like you is simple.
You can bend words at will to advance your agenda. Make `em mean whatever you will, today.and something different tomorrow.
See..the other thing is..you have to convince the 3% of us that still uphold the Constitution that you make sense.
Don't believe that you make the grade either.just as your henchmen, both here on the forum, and those in the government, media, and big business haven't either.
Thought they banned you?
Laurence Tribe once told me that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. The argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is of questionable authority; which is now the question put before the Supreme Court in the Parker case. The relevancy of whether the Second Amendment applies to an "individual" or a "collective" right, which was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Hale, has caused a change of position by several leading legal commentators, including Professor Tribe, whose treatise on constitutional law was cited by the majority in Parker. In the most recent edition of his work, Professor Tribe now asserts that the Second Amendment protects an important right that should not be dismissed as wholly irrelevant and that "the federal government may not disarm individuals without some unusually strong justification." See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Third Ed., Vol. 1 (2000). Still, the limits and scope of such a right are somewhat nebulous and difficult to define whatever judicial test may be applied. As the final arbiter of the Constitution, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding as law on all of the states; and it is the pervasive effect of such a decision that should have all gun owners concerned.
You reveal yourself in your statements.
The Natural Law/Rights theory was applied by the SCOTUS in its decisions up until the early 1900's, due to the clear understanding that this was the original intent and clear meaning. This sets aside all your other diatribes and negates your arguments reference the founding documents.
As to the above quote, Amendment II is very easy to understand and its intent and meaning are crystal clear. The only issue is that the gov't does not adhere to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Your arguments hold no water sir/madame.
Who, with any semblance of intelligence, wouldn't be?
The upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS, may very well be THE major turning point, in laying the groundwork for the direction of the future, for this country. I for one, would rather it be decided NOW, whatever the outcome, rather than passing the uncertainty down to my children and their children. The same questions and uncertainties our fathers passed down to us.
We will see if the SCOTUS can figure out what the meaning of "is" is. After all, it IS just lawyers twisting words, to suit an agenda. Nothing new, we will wait to see what "their" agenda is. Howbeit we will have to live with the decision, or not. As each man must resolve what is deep down in his own heart and soul, and what price he is willing to pay, if found unacceptable.
For the VAST MAJORITY -- APATHY RUNS RAMPANT. Willing, some even helping, to secure the collar around their own throats. Those, who will be led to slaughter, without a bleat.
Concerned?
Who, with any semblance of intelligence, wouldn't be?
The upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS, may very well be THE major turning point, in laying the groundwork for the direction of the future, for this country. I for one, would rather it be decided NOW, whatever the outcome, rather than passing the uncertainty down to my children and their children. The same questions and uncertainties our fathers passed down to us.
We will see if the SCOTUS can figure out what the meaning of "is" is. After all, it IS just lawyers twisting words, to suit an agenda. Nothing new, we will wait to see what "their" agenda is. Howbeit we will have to live with the decision, or not. As each man must resolve what is deep down in his own heart and soul, and what price he is willing to pay, if found unacceptable.
For the VAST MAJORITY -- APATHY RUNS RAMPANT. Willing, some even helping, to secure the collar around their own throats. Those, who will be led to slaughter, without a bleat.
I know what you are saying pickenup, but I will emphasize for others here, that the meaning of Amendment II is clear and always has been.
The only decision of note is whether the Fed, through the SCOTUS, will be forced to recognize it for what it has always been, or whether they will finally make a definitive and overt move and make a clean break from the God-given individual freedoms secured in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
I think that given the ever escalating attacks of the B.O.R., that we have an indicator of where this is headed, now don't we?
What the proponents of the Second Amendment don't understand is that the ruling in Parker does not raise a justiciable challenge to United States v. Miller. To the contrary, the D.C. Court of Appeals went out of its way to reconcile its ruling with the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller. Furthermore, the respondent (Heller) would be precluded from raising a challenge to the Miller decision for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court will not overturn its prior decision, which is the controlling precedent; and what we will see is a decision governing issues that Miller did not address directly, which can only lead to more regulation lessening our rights. [NB: The Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration that, while arguing in favor of an individual right under the Second Amendment, urged the court uphold federal gun laws restricting the possession of firearms.] Whether the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual or a collective right is uncertain; but what is certain is that the court will not rule that an individual has an unfettered right to own a gun; and it is the effect of such a ruling on all the states in a case that only affects the District of Columbia (and which could easily be resolved by remedial legislation by the Congress) that should be every gun owner's worst nightmare. To put it bluntly: it's playing Russian roulette with our rights.
If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.
I, for one, do not want to have my rights to own a gun protected under the Second Amendment. The problem with the Second Amendment is that the proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation; which, as made clear by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, is not prohibited by the provisions of the Second Amendment. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Prior to Miller, judicial interpretations held that the Second Amendment was a limitation on the power of Congress over states' (not individual) rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). However, the Miller decision opens the door to federal regulation of firearms as well, holding that objections that federal laws (i.e., National Fire Arms Act and the Harrison Narcotic Act) "usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable." Miller, p. 174.
What the proponents of the Second Amendment don't understand is that the ruling in Parker does not raise a justiciable challenge to United States v. Miller. To the contrary, the D.C. Court of Appeals went out of its way to reconcile its ruling with the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller. Furthermore, the respondent (Heller) would be precluded from raising a challenge to the Miller decision for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court will not overturn its prior decision, which is the controlling precedent; and what we will see is a decision governing issues that Miller did not address directly, which can only lead to more regulation lessening our rights. [NB: The Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration that, while arguing in favor of an individual right under the Second Amendment, urged the court uphold federal gun laws restricting the possession of firearms.] Whether the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual or a collective right is uncertain; but what is certain is that the court will not rule that an individual has an unfettered right to own a gun; and it is the effect of such a ruling on all the states in a case that only affects the District of Columbia (and which could easily be resolved by remedial legislation by the Congress) that should be every gun owner's worst nightmare. To put it bluntly: it's playing Russian roulette with our rights.
If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.
All I can say to this misguided, albeit well worded, post is Good Lord!
I am not even going to get into picking it apart, since the poster (paleobrute perhaps?) will sprinkle court decisions and lawyerly words all about.
My bottom line point is that although it is an established fact that the courts have ruled again and again against the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights and what is its simple and clear meaning, none of that changes that simple and clear meaning.
Gov't, by its very nature will do pretty much anything to advance its power and its control over its citizens.
The SCOTUS is staffed by political appointees and those who have agendas just like all politicians do. Once in awhile, a true constitutionalist has been appointed, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Many are guilty of legislating from the bench and many have societal agendas, period.
One final point direct to the poster. What would make anyone think that the Fed will pay any more attention to the meaning of the 9th or 10th Amendment, than they do to the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment and others?
One final point direct to the poster.
This will be my last post directed to this poster as well.
Yes, we have seen all this before.
The referrals to old cases........boring.
Cases have been decided both ways.
The, "Laurence Tribe once told me"
WOW, I am SOoooo impressed.........NOT.
The right of the people........shall NOT be infringed, is clear to me.
If ignored, he/she will have a melt-down.....again.