High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons [declared no individual constitutional right]

Findlaw ^ | Reuters

[Dead Corpse]

Yeah, but for today at least, I'm done making diaper pins for this kid.

Regards...

[robertpaulsen]

as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification"

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. So the "in the first half century after its ratification" would take us to 1839.

So the author is saying "every court case from 1789 to 1839". According to you, that's two (not 22) miserable, minor state cases that had nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment being applied to the states.

This is an empty, exaggerated claim! And you just accept it! Just like you make up your own "commentators". As though their "opinion" matters in a court of law.

[Dead Corpse]

So the opinions of the very people that wrote the Constitution, and the applicable Amendments, no longer matter in a court of law.

You need stonger meds.

[robertpaulsen]

"Art 1. Sec 31. Para h"

WTF??? This section has to do with civil rights, not arms!

SEC. 31.
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

You're wasting my time. Go home.

[robertpaulsen]

It means there were two, not 22 cases. You lied.

[Dead Corpse]

And Cruickshank was a 14th Amendment case, but you used it for a Second Amendment argument. Also, I posted sections from the California Constitution illustrative to the fact that they considered their Constitution subordinate to the Federal Constitution and that things contrary to the US Constitution should be considered Void.

As the California Assualt Weapons ban, the 9th Circuit Court covering California, and the Californians being denied their CIVIL RIGHT to own firearms of their choice, it is all applicable.

Or it would be if you didn't have a vested interest in keeping your fellow citizens disarmed.

[Dead Corpse]

Go back and look at the Congressional report. There are many more cases than just two listed in their Appendix. Now, and I know this will be a stretch for you, count them.

[Dead Corpse]

Also, how dare you call ME a liar. Especially after you asserted that the Congressional Report said something it plainly did NOT.

At least I'm back my assertions up with other sources. You are just talking out your a$$.

[robertpaulsen]

In the first half century after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were only two court cases, one in 1822 and one in 1833. That's it! Two. there were two cases! Not 22. Read!

[robertpaulsen]

"Also, I posted sections from the California Constitution illustrative to the fact that they considered their Constitution subordinate to the Federal Constitution and that things contrary to the US Constitution should be considered Void."

Only in that section! It was very clear about that. And it had nothing to do with the RKBA.

[eno_]

Ahh, I see from your ping list that the entire Drug Warrior troll colony are gun-grabbers, too. These are the people for whom psy ops with laser pointers should be part of their everyday misery.

[Dead Corpse]

I didn't repost EVERY section in the California Constitution either. Just the first two I came across. It mentions it under the education Rights sections as well.

It has EVERYTHING to do when considering the Primacy of our Rights ennumerated in the US Constutition and the States inability to infringe on those basic Rights.

[carenot]

On the grounds of Federalism, perhaps the court is saying that the Second Amendment prohibits the federalis from regulating fire arms, however, the states can decide for themselves how to regulate firearms.

Then what good is the 2nd Amendment?

[carenot]

This is no good. I can only hope that Bush gets the opportunity to assign a conservative to the Supreme court, at least one that thinks along the same lines as Ashcroft!

Sure he will. It would be nice if President Bush would fight for his Judges, as he did for the Medicare/Medicine Bill.

[tpaine]

Yep, every one of them has admitted at one time or another that our US Constitutions BOR's is subserviant to a states 'rights', IE, -- to your neighbors whim..

Your neighbors in LA want to ban handguns? -- Hey, get a majority to approve the referendumb, and shazam, -- "its a law"...

[eno_]

Yup, and just to drive home the point, they have the ability to compartmentalize their brains enough to keep the Drug War out the sphere of any such state's rights. A singularly warped an unsustainable reading of our Constitution.

[Pro-Bush]

In relation to the Supreme Court, a member must either die, retire, or quit in order for that individual to get replaced.

In term of President Bush getting the other judges appointed, I agree.

[jwalsh07]

Pop quiz. Close your books

Robert, the second amendment guarantees a right to individuals. Rights only accrue to indivduals. Powers and privileges accrue to individuals, states and the federal government.

The first clue in the second amendment that should have tipped you off is the word "right". The second clue would have been the failure of the 2A to mention Congress or the States.

Being clueless, I guess you just didn't figure those issues out. I would suggest you use an open book next time.

[El Gato]

The Constitution defined federal powers only. Each state already had their own state constitution. The second amendment said that the federal government shall not infringe the RKBA.

Not true, the new Constitution put limitations on the state's powers as well. See particularly Art IV sections 1 and 2, and the 10th amendment which affects states by it's terms.

Some Courts, the Georgia Supreme Court for example, ruled that the Second Amendment restricted the states as well. (Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)). Some commentators as stated this as well. William Rawle, possibly the original "Philadelphia lawyer", who was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, wrote:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2nd Ed. 1829

The book cited was an early work in the field of American constitutional law which was adopted as a textbook at West Point and other institutions. The Quote is taken from CHAPTER X entitled: "OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS."

[ConservativeMan55]

Rush back at it again! Take that Liberals!