Gun control activists are counting on heightened passions to pass their initiatives.
>>“a classic use of ballot measures to enact important reforms that corporate-controlled legislatures are unwilling to pass”.
So much stupid in that statement.
“Common sense” speech laws are okay with the Euro-pinkos.
The 2nd Amendment has not changed. Screw everything else.
WA and OR are left coast anomalies. Lots of I leaders totally oppose what the lefty cities dictate. Sad.
The Guardian is a Leftist Limie rag.
They can simply forget this crap, we refuse to go there. They can pound sand, we will keep ours.
If they try, there will be a hot internal war.
It is important to to disseminate anti USA anti 2a propaganda at every opportunity. The people are becoming curious why their standard of living remains second rate compared to the USA.
I don’t see a shift. “...shall not be infringed.”
MOLON LABE!
Liberty or death there is no Third Way.
***Activists increasingly believe the issue will be litigated at the state level,***
Already been done. Here are state laws thrown out by State Courts because they violated the 2nm Amendment of the US Constitution. These are from the highly suppressed 1982 printing of the Senate Report on THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. 97th Congress.
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/68101
19th century cases
16. *
Wilson v. State, 33 Ark.
557
, at
560
, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)
.
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or
guns, the evil must be prevented by the
(p.17)
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a
general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. *
Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App.
298
, at
300-01
(1878)
.
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the
defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his
person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights
is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the
surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. *
Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn.
165
, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871)
.
“The passage from Story (A Constitutional commentator) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have
maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the
citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. *
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.)
243
, at
251
(1846)
.
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole
people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear
arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be
infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the
important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so
vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
20.
Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn.
356
, at
359-60
(1833)
.
“But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought
over with them this English statute, [the statute of Northampton,] or portion of the
common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, ‘that the freemen of
this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ Article II, sec.
26. * * * By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all
the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any
qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be
going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgement a constitutional privilege,
which is so declared; neither, after so solumn an instrument hath said the people may
carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed, such a necessarily
consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to
the framers of it, the absence of such a view.”
21.
Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.)
90
, at
92, and 93
, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
.
“For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed
arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be
unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.”
“But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the
constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the
constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part
may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by
the constitution.”
NOW you see why this is so suppressed.
The issue in Oregon is especially egregious. There is a Oregon statute that actually prohibits ballot Initiatives to remove/infring 2nd Amendment rights. ORS 166.170
I cannot Understand how it Has been allowed to proceed in light of that statute.
Yep - and explaining why the Constitution has no “Noble Cause” clause....there’s so many potential “noble causes” in some folks minds that the libs would rule the universe ....for the 22 years it would take them to destroy it.