(AP )
Posted on 10/01/2009 1:01:40 PM PDT by neverdem
To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be – for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature – to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right pertaining to each and all of the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (Emphasis added.)
Not a good reference point for anyone concerned with liberty Those were dark days for the Constitution.
CBS News, not a credible news source.
Blind squirrel, acorn.
This is just barely postbellum.
“Reconstruction”.
We could use a well written privacy amendment.
It is the Civil War era Amendments to the Constitution which will determine whether the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and states or only applies to federal laws, i.e. - whether the 14th Amendment “incorporated” the 2nd Amendment and made it applicable to the states.
The decision will be a 5-4 decision, I have no doubt. I just don’t know which way it will go.
The Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW of THE LAND. PERIOD!
It might be another one brokered by Scalia in which he gets the strongest thing by Kennedy that he can.
Funny how the Bill of Rights preempts all other State laws except the 2nd Amendment.
If “no law” really meant “no law”, or that “reserved to the states or to the people” meant just that, then you might be able to count on the meaning of “shall not be infringed.” These laws should have all been voided about 1910.
And there is the fundamental flaw of their entire premise.
Which, BTW, Chicago will not issue you unless you are a law enforcement official, a professional bodyguard or a member of the City Council.
It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty,
The power to protect a citizen belongs to that citizen. The police have been granted the authority to protect us. But they have not, and cannot, be given the responsibility. That is organic to the individual.
So the Supreme Court will also decide if Chicago is permitted to ignore the first amendment as well. Naturally 4 votes can be phoned in right now. More than a little frightening to think that the Constitutional rights of the American people hinge on the rationality of Kennedy! But then, maybe we NEED a Supreme Court decision overturning our 2nd amendment rights. The theft of our wealth, the brainwashing of our children, the loss of free speech...none of these have provided the spark necessary to move actual Americans to action. Perhaps “government drop-off centers” where citizens must relinquish their weapons and stories of doors beaten down, family members thrown to the floor and homes ransacked by Brown Shirt Brigades searching for weapons and ammunition...maybe these will get people mad enough to leave their couches and march on DC.
We’ll see is Sotomayor will do as promised: sway the court Left with her powers of persuasion and moral righteousness!
85 million households own guns with an average of 3.2 guns per gun-owning household. They're going to need more Brown Shirts.
"We are as numerous as the stars in the heavens...and we are all gun-men."
Thomas Jefferson
—with fingers figuratively crossed for several months, I keep in mind the words of Neal Knox—”you can’t tell what the Supreme Court will do”-—
That's like saying John Stossel wasn't credible when he was working for ABC.
IIRC, I've read and posted articles by the author, Declan McCullagh, twice now regarding the Second Amendment. Each time he was on the money. The first was probably before D.C. v. Heller.
She probably can’t even persuade her cats not to barf on the rug.
http://www.isba.org/Sections/constbook.pdf on page 48 states, “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It would appear that any IL municipality can toss out RKBA.
Yes, in the realm of enumerated powers, the federal constitution is supreme. The 14th Amendment, like much of the rest of it has been twisted beyond intent.
The right to bear arms is qualified by the term “subject only to police power.” That means you may have a gun only if the police and the local law say you may. You may not have a gun in violation of the law. Local laws, which provide for an almost complete ban on handguns, have been upheld.
That CAN'T be what the writers intended!
Well, If the Supreme Court is going to decide to leave the decision whether to heed the 2nd Amendment up to state and local government, why don’t they just start at the First Amendment and work their way down the list? Then we can see how the state-run press likes getting it’s ox gored first.
Whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment should have been passed, I've seen no rational explanation as to why it should be regarded as protecting the "right" to an abortion from state encroachment (given that abortion was hardly accepted with the Fourteenth Amendment was written) and yet does not protect the Second Amendment.
The original intent of the Bill of Rights was that it restricted the powers of the Federal government, not the powers of the states or private actors. For example, the Federal government could not have an established religion per the First Amendement, but a state could.
Actually Reconstruction era. The Civil War victory and Reconstruction period were historic advances of democracy. Americans were seen as equals in a way they had not been in the antebellum class and race structures. America now had the economic and political freedom to become the world’s greatest power.
The idea that even the poorest Americans, even black Americans, had the right to arm and defend themselves was something new. Republicans saw that white and black Republicans in the South would need the personal right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against the Democrat KKK.
If it’s up to the state to determine how much it can restrict the 2nd, then the argument can be raised that a state could also allow individuals to bear machine guns, grenades and mortar rounds, regardless of federal law.
You can't really blame the cats. That's what do every time I see her on TV, and they have to look at her in person.
It's not. The Illinois case that "decided" the issue was a close contest, and the dissent has the better argument, by far. That the people of Illinois don't rise up against the scoundrels that run the state is lamentable. Now they are running to "papa Fed" for assistance, because they aren't man enough to handle their own state government without federal assistance.
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483, 470 N.E.2d 266 (1984). "Police power" is used to justify things like parade permits, zoning, and the like. But it is not legitimate to extend police power to the point of micromanaging firearms possession.
I’m sure I’m not the only one lmao at this introduction of the circular argument...
“In urban environments, where handgun abuse is so rampant, the protection of a right to handguns simply because they are in common use undermines, rather than guarantees, ordered liberty. It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty, since enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence.”
Which is disproven because, “In urban environments, where handgun abuse is so rampant, “ shows the gun control they desire to remain in force isn’t working at all, in reality.
better to prepare for the national 'common sense' gun laws once the incorporation happens...
You nailed it.
Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds
5 Myths We Need to Can About Soda Taxes - Why do politicians keep trying to tax your Coke?
Libertarian Group To Sue Administration for Failing to Disclose Global Warming Docs
Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
The section of the Constitution involving letters of marque assumes that private individuals would own cannon-armed warships. I don’t think the Founders would have been worried about a few grenades in private hands.
“I don’t think the Founders would have been worried about a few grenades in private hands.”
I certainly agree with that.
I believe Col. Moultrie - commander of the 1st and 2nd South Carolina regiments - brought in 9 and 12 pound cannon from his own armory to Fort Johnson in defense of Charleston against the British warships in June, 1776.
I did some digging. Apparently the Illinois Supreme Court had in previous decisions considered that provision of the Illinois Constitution as a collective right, not an individual one, and only applied to the point that Illinois would be able to maintain a militia. Citizens not members of the militia could be banned from having guns. It would seem that the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. How much it disagrees supposedly will be seen sometime in February of 2010.
The Supremes did say that it was permitted to withhold guns from the mentally ill, felons, etc. They’ll probably permit registration, but put the burden on the City to prove in each individual case a good reason to deny that particular person a permit. The City will then say, “O.K., that process will cost about $500 a person, so that’s what the permit fee will be.”
Why they think that doing so will make a difference is beyond me. Do they think that relaxing the law will make much difference in criminals having guns?
That doesn't wash. Remember the poll tax. It was declared unConstitutional about 40 years ago. Registration and licensing fees will go the same way, IMHO.
The so called Judges will compromise with the world socialists and the gun rights will go down with the rest of the freedoms gave to us by God and supposedly protected by the bill of rights, any law they are allowed to pass to control arms is an infringment,
For instance in sports an infringment doe,s not have to be a foul, it can simply be a minor tecnicality to give one side an advantage over the other,
The same way in gun control, an infringment is any thing that would discourage you from buying or bearing arms, for instance having to buy a permit, or having a back ground security check.
The 2nd amendment reads (the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) period, no ifs, no conditions.
Funny you should predict that. All the indications go in the opposite direction.
In the 1939 US v Miller case, the United States Supreme Court said that the 1934 NFA was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, an infringement on the 2nd amendment, -IF- the gun that was being taxed (in this case, a short barrel shotgun) had a defensive use, or was used by the military.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
But, if they had evidence that the weapon was any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense, then, said SCOTUS in Miller, the part of the 1934 NFA that taxed short barrel shotguns was unconstitutional.
Fast forward to 2009, the Heller case. Scalia deliberately misread Miller to say the OPPOSITE of what it says. That taxing (certain) guns is A-OK -
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.
"Read in isolation" is a strawman of Scalia's making, as no part of a Court opinion is likely to be correctly construed, if it is taken in isolation (as ALL the federal courts have done with the Presser case, but that is another story). At any rate, set machineguns aside for a moment. What about short barrel shotguns? The sort that got Randy Weaver in trouble? Did the Miller case render the short barrel shotgun restriction unconstitutional? No comment from Scalia on that. It's patently obvious that parts of the 1934 NFA ARE unconstitutional, and the 1939 US Supreme Court said so. But now, in 2009, SCOTUS has performed a reversal through dishonest rhetoric and logic.
I expect "fees, registration and taxing" to be addressed with similar hackery by SCOTUS.
You don’t pay for a right.
I hear ya'. But that day is long gone, in this country. Land of the free, Feh.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.