Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb 9, 2004 | by Edward Epstein

[Lazamataz]

Washington -- Gun control hasn't emerged as a leading issue in the 2004 presidential race, but that is likely to change as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein intensifies her effort to win renewal of the decade-old assault weapons ban, which expires in September.

[TigersEye]

It is an analogy based upon a nothing. Frogs will not stay in the pot and be boiled.

Spoken like a half-boiled frog.

Your posting style is great. Are you Robin Williams?

[tpaine]

First you say that "the 14th Amendment was expressly written to extend the Second to the states", then you claim "the 14th did not apply it to the states"...

Which way would you have it?

And frankly I do not understand why you say states have the power to control our RKBA's. Can you explain?
How can you justify CA's ability to prohibit 'assault weapons'?
-657-

______________________________________


mrsmith now writes:
Of course a state was always free to apply the federal Bill of Rights to itself if it wished to.
Whether a state would allow one of it's judges to do so was solely up to
the state.

---

Not so. State judges are bound to observe the BOR's as the supreme Law of the Land by Art. VI..

As you are well aware, and refuse to admit..

Why is it that you support a states 'right' to prohibit guns? -- Can you answer?

[mrsmith]

"I don't think they've ever made a ruling based on the Ninth. The 14th did not apply it to the states..."

"First you say that "the 14th Amendment was expressly written to extend the Second to the states", then you claim "the 14th did not apply it to the states"... "

Flagrant stupidity and/or dishonesty is just not amusing. It gets one treated like a fool or, probably best, ignored.

[tpaine]

At #387 mrsmith wrote:

"Frankly I do not understand why people wish to rewrite the Constitution over this. The 14th Amendment was expressly written to extend the Second to the states anyway."

At #611 mrsmith wrote:
I have just the opposite situation: the people I have been discussing with seem to read the Second Amendment without considering the 10th's rule of construction.
You can find many rulings by the Supremes based on the 10th. I don't think they've ever made a ruling based on the Ninth. The 14th did not apply it to the states- it is still a limit only on the feds. They often threaten to apply it to the states though in their dicta.

"First you say that "the 14th Amendment was expressly written to extend the Second to the states", then you claim "the 14th did not apply it to the states"... "

Flagrant stupidity and/or dishonesty is just not amusing. It gets one treated like a fool or, probably best, ignored.

Your two statements contradict each other..
Your effort to claim they do not are foolish, -- perhaps dishonest.

Which brings us back to my questions:

Which way would you have it?
And frankly I do not understand why you say states have the power to control our RKBA's. Can you explain?
How can you justify CA's ability to prohibit 'assault weapons'?

I suspect you cannot answer, & that's why you set up the "ignore" diversion --- , true?

[El Gato]

This poor judge offers nothing but his desires to support his rejection of Marshall's ruling and dicta- and our history. It's a perfect example of living constitution construction.

The Judge of the Georgia Supreme Court (not just some "poor judge") quoted a US Supreme Court decision applying the 5th amendment to the states. He was arguing that some of the others, including the second, were similarly applicable to the states through the Supremacy Clause of Article VI.

[mrsmith]

"quoted a US Supreme Court decision applying the 5th amendment to the states"

No he didn't, there is no such thing.

The Supreme Court ruled that the the Fifth did not apply to the states- as I quoted above.

The Supreme Court ruled that the the Fifth did not apply to the states- as I quoted above.

The article VI argument is just perverse.
It was fear of Article VI that was specifically mentioned by the Founders as a reason to further limit the new govenment by a Bill of Rights!

[TigersEye]

U.S. Constitution

Article. VI.

(second paragraph, aka 'The Supremacy Clause')

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(third paragraph.)

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Mulder]

Thanks for the ping, Joe.

There is no way a stand-alone AWB bill will pass the House, but I suspect that the "enemies of the Constitution" will try to enact it during a conference committee.

Attached to another piece of legislation, and with WH support, it will probably pass then.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, a Patriot.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your reply is indicative of a total misunderstanding of my comment most likely deliberately so.

Guns are tools nothing more. Some posting here seem to worship them above and beyond their utility.

But keep on distorting my comments since you enjoy it SO much.

[TigersEye]

Frog.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Was that supposed to mean anything?