Posted on 04/08/2003 5:57:45 AM PDT by kattracks
Tench Coxe is commenting on the language and meaning of 2nd Amendment that hadn't been written? A remarkable conclusion from your uncited quote.
Nothing about a seperation of federal and state legislative powers there.
Our Constitution which created the federal government didn't even exist yet.
And of course, there's nothing in the quote to suggest that state regulations of firearms would be barred by the yet to be written or ratified 2nd Amendment.
Another shot directly into your foot.
Wrong. Too busy spewing to actually read your own "cites"?
Finally, our view of "bear arms" as used in the Second Amendment appears to be the same as that expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Souter) in Muscarello v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1921 (1998)Muscarello v. United States involved a violation of Section 924(c)(1) of Title 18, United States Code; NOT a state law.
Poor you.
You are right Roscoe. What was I thinking posting a qoute from a Founder on the reasoning behind having a Second Amendment and it's scope! Why, that would be like logic and facts and other stuff you don't want to hear.
The appearance of "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment accords fully with the plain meaning of the subject of the substantive guarantee, "the people," and offers no support for the proposition that the Second Amendment applies only during periods of actual military service or only to those who are members of a select militia.
What a desperate idiot you are. You must like getting bitch slapped around like this.
Nothing there "pertinent" to the assertion that state regulation of firearms is barred by the 2nd Amendment.
Beg on, brother!
The 2nd Amendment hadn't even been written when the comment was made, and it doesn't say anything about state regulation of firearms being barred.
Two swings, two misses, too predictable.
Asserts individual Right jackass. If you are my brother, then Mom shoulda kept her legs crossed.
Sorry Roscoe. You lose again. Are you having trouble with the whole definition of inviolatable, unalienable, uninfringable Rights? How many f%cking ways does it need to be stated? State, Federal, even a King would not be able to take such an inherent Right away.
Of course, you have to admit that only if you are NOT a little Hitler tyrant wanna-be like yourself. Go away Nazi.
Beg, beg, beg. Those terms aren't "defined" by Coxe as barring state regulations of firearms, and the terms don't even appear in the quote you posted.
Poor you.
Go tell it DU where they will actually fall for your lies.
None on point.
How you got that out of all the "unalienable Right" and "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms" is something only a Tibetan monk has the patience to contemplate.
You have still, after more than 1100 posts, not even come close to pointing out anything that gives any government the power to charge a person like in the lead article with a firearms possession crime.
Home owner.
In his home.
Openly carrying a firearm.
Legally purchased.
No criminal record on the home owners part.
The real criminal was INSIDE the mans house in his daughters room.
Not actively part of a State militia and therefore not subject to active militia regulation, even by your own sources and admission.
You remain sourceless, clueless, and brainless. Beg your idiot responses elsewhere.
He begged. Nothing about states, nothing about state regulation.
Poor you.
Plaintiffs not only seek to have this court declare the Gun Control Law unconstitutional without the requisite showing, but urge as a ground that the Gun Control Law violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The short answer to this contention is supplied in plaintiffs' own brief. As plaintiffs concede, it has been held that the Second Amendment is not a limitation upon the states. (Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 [1886].) Further, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hold that the first ten amendments of the Constitution were all made applicable to the states through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903 [1947].) In the conceded absence of any contrary authority, the court rejects plaintiffs' claim that the Gun Control Law violates the Second Amendment.Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525 (1968)
Poor, poor you.
Don't be on the wrong side of that line when we finally have enough of your BS and break out the tar and feathers
Crying is refuting.
Similarly, New Hampshire ratified the Constitution but stated:Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot again. You should have read it first.It is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alteration in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this State & more effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government--The Convention do therefore recommend that the (p.1030)following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.
Twelfth Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
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.